Dismissed

Lakhveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2024CW/102/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dissolution of Water Users Association Management Committee. Court held petitioner failed to comply with prior High Court order despite repeated directions. Order dismissing writ petition allowing dissolution was left unaltered; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed being bereft of merits; stay petition and pending applications dismissed.

Lakhveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:719]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 102/2024

¶4

Lakhveer Singh S/o Ajmer Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Chak 18H, District Sri-Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Circle SriGanganagar, Rajasthan.

¶8

Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, North Division, Sri-Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶9

Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, Division III, Raisinghnagar, Sri-Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. CS Kotwani with Ms. Swati Shekhar Ms. Abhilasha Bora with Ms. Aakanksha Chowdhary

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order

¶13

05/01/2024

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:-

¶15

(i) By appropriate writ, order or direction, impugned order dated 12.12.2023 (Annex-3) issued by the Respondent No.1 i.e. Superintending Engineer and Recommendation dated 06.10.2023 (Annex-2) issued by the Respondent No.2 i.e. Executive Engineer be quashed and set aside. (ii) By appropriate writ, order or direction, the managing committee may kindly be restored; and

¶16

(iii) Any other order of direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.

[2024:RJ-JD:719]

[CW-102/2024]

(2 of 6)

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was duly elected under the Scheme of Rajasthan Farmer’s Participation in the Management of Irrigation System Act, 2000. Impugned order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure-2) has been passed against the petitioner while directing that the Water Users Association has been dissolved by respondent No.1 as the petitioner has failed to comply with the direction passed by the High Court, Jodhpur. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure2) on two grounds that firstly no prior notice was issued to the petitioner while affording an opportunity of hearing before passing the order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure-2)and secondly that since there were various orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner was repeatedly seeking clarification from the department while requesting them to give directions as passed by the Hon’ble High Court to which order is to be implemented and the department failed to give directions to the petitioner in respect of the same.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3057/2022 (Sardul Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.) and 7867/2023 (Jaskaran Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) following orders were passed on dated 04.03.2022 and 31.05.2023 respectively:-

¶22

“In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3057/2022

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Chairman, Water User Association, Kesharisinghpur has changed the water term from Murbba No.27/29 to 36/38 vide order dated 29.05.2021.

(3 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:719]

[CW-102/2024]

The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said order before the Water Distribution Committee and the said appeal of the petitioner came to be allowed vide order dated 06.09.2021 and the earlier arrangement of water supply was restored. It is submitted that thereafter, the respondents have preferred an appeal before the Project Chairman, Water Resources Department, who without giving any opportunity of hearing and adhering to the provisions of law has passed the order dated 05.01.2022 on his letter head and set aside the earlier arrangement of water supply to the agricultural field of the petitioner.

¶28

Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application as well.

¶29

In the meanwhile, effect and operation of order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the respondent No.4- Project Chairman, Water Resources Department (Water User) Gang Nahar Project, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar shall remain stayed.

¶30

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7867/2023

¶31

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks. In the meanwhile, the volume of water provided for the irrigation, as on 12.05.2023, shall be maintained by the respondents.”

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had duly complied with the order dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure-4) for which the compliance report has been placed on record as Annexure 7 dated 15.10.2021 and Annexure 8 (undated) (copy of barabandi for the year 2023-2025) respectively. Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 31.05.2023 was not complied by the petitioner but he has made various communications with the respondent-department on 15.06.2023 (Annexure-9) and 06.07.2023 (Annexure-14) while requesting the respondentdepartment to give the petitioner appropriate directions, however, the respondent-department did not gave direction to the petitioner

[2024:RJ-JD:719]

[CW-102/2024]

(4 of 6)

in respect of the same on account of which the petitioner did not comply with the order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure-5)

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the petitioner had not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the respondent-department and further no directions were given to the petitioner for making compliance of the order dated 31.05.2023, therefore, the petitioner cannot be punished by way of passing the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure-3). He further submits that after the communication dated 22.06.2023 was made to the petitioner for making compliance of the order dated 31.05.2023 on the next date itself i.e. 23.06.2023 (Annexure-11) the petitioner again made a communication with the respondent-department seeking directions from the respondent-department while apprising them of the difficulty being faced by the petitioner in making compliance of the order dated 31.05.2023. Learned counsel further submits that respondents have adopted a discriminatory action as in similarly situated cases, the respondents have accorded an opportunity of hearing however, in the present case, no opportunity was given to the petitioner.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-department submits that a bare look at communication dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure-2) reflects that the petitioner by way of the communication dated 22.06.2023 was specifically directed to make compliance of the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court however, the petitioner has utterly failed to comply with the said order. Learned counsel further submits that

[2024:RJ-JD:719]

[CW-102/2024]

(5 of 6)

Section 45 of the Act of Rajasthan Farmer’s Participation in the Management of Irrigation System Act, 2000, does not mandate the respondent to give the petitioner a prior notice for invoking Section 45 for the purpose of dissolution of the Management Committee of the Farmer’s Association.

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondent-State further submits that in the present case, a prior notice before passing the impugned order was not required as the petitioner was aware of the complete facts of the case and he was also aware of the fact that there was specific direction given by the respondentdepartment for making compliance of the order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure-5) passed by the Hon’ble High Court whereas in other similarly situated cases, the concerned person was not completely aware of the fact and a notice was required to be given. Learned counsel also submits that a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure-3) also reveals that the petitioner has been repeatedly given direction for making compliance of the order dated 31.05.2023 as in the impugned order, a reference of the communications dated 02.06.2023, 31.07.2023, 07.08.2023, 07.11.2023 has been made to the petitioner and the said communication have not been denied by the petitioner, but he failed to complied with the direction given by the respondentdepartment and therefore, no further directions were required to be given to the petitioner.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

[2024:RJ-JD:719]

[CW-102/2024]

(6 of 6)

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner by way of communication dated 22.06.2023 was given specific directions for making compliance of the order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure-5) passed by the Hon’ble High Court. Further in the order dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure-3) the reference of the communication dated 02.06.2023, 31.07.2023, 07.08.2023 and 07.11.2023 also speak volumes of the fact that the respondent department has been repeatedly directing the petitioner for complying with the order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure-5), therefore the petitioner’s stand that he had been seeking direction from the respondentdepartment is not sustainable. Thus, this Court finds that the petitioner has not complied with the order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure-5) passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Jodhpur which was required to be duly complied with by him.

¶49

Thus, in view of the above, no interference is required in the order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure-2) issued by respondent No.2Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, North Division, Sri Ganganagar and order dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure-3) issued by respondent No.1-The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Circle Sri-Ganganagar.

¶50

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being bereft of merits. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.

¶51

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J

¶52

186-amit/-

Lakhveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakti Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Satpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokendra Singh Vs Rajdeep Singh

Rajab Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Ambika College Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Narpat Ram @ Narpat Punia Vs State of Rajasthan