Disposed

Union of India v. State and Others

Uttarakhand HC10 Jun 2019WPMS/853/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India filed a writ petition regarding non-supply of water and denial of permission to construct a tubewell. The court found that the Executive Engineer of Jal Sansthan is the competent authority and directed them to decide the application within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. The Executive Engineer, Jal Sansthan, Nainital, is directed to consider the petitioner's application and take a decision within three weeks.

Union of India Vs State and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 853 of 2009

¶3

Union of India ..…Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State and others .…Respondents

¶6

Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Narayan Dutt, Brief Holder for the State

¶7

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

¶8

A controversy a rising out of the orders passed in Appeal No. 52/2014 of 2005-06, Executive Engineer, Almora, Central Division, Central Public Works Department v. State of Uttarakhand and others and the order passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Nainital in Case No. 19/4 of 2005-06, State v. Executive Engineer, Almora, Central Division, Central Public Works Department, Almora, by virtue of aforesaid two proceedings the cases have been decided by the orders dated 27.04.2009 and 03.08.2006 respectively. The petitioner was aggrieved against an action of respondent of not supplying the water in the area, which was referred in the proceedings before the District Magistrate.

¶9

When this writ petition was entertained as against the impugned orders, the coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 08.05.2019 has issued a direction to the District Magistrate to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner. The District Magistrate, by the order dated 28.05.2019, it reflects that the petitioner intended to establish a Tubewell near Khurpatal lake, but the respondent declined to give the water connection to the petitioner despite the fact of submission of the application,

¶10

¶11

submitted by the petitioner for supplying of the water connection to it. In furtherance of the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by this Court, the District Magistrate has taken a decision on 28.05.2019, whereby after considering the total controversy as raised by the petitioner, he had referred the matter to the Junior Engineer, Jal Sansthan, Nainital to take a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner on 15.05.2019 and decide the same in accordance with law.

¶12

After the decision taken on 28.05.2019, there is nothing on record to show that the Junior Engineer has taken any action in pursuance of the order passed by the District Magistrate on 28.05.2019. In all fitness of things and looking to the claim raised by the petitioner and as observed by the District Magistrate in his order dated 28.05.2019, since grant or denial of a permission to construct a Tubewell falls to be within the exclusive domain of the decision making process Executive Engineer, Jal Sansthan, as such, he would be the competent authority to take a decision in the light of the direction issued by the District Magistrate on 28.05.2019.

¶13

Instead of venturing into the merits of the claim of the petitioner which has been denied by the order impugned in the writ petition, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage with direction to the Executive Engineer, Almora Division of Central Public Works Department, as well as that of Executive Engineer, Jal Sansthan, Nainital of the concerned area to consider and take a decision on the petitioner’s application dated 15.05.2019 for installation of the Tubewell in the light of the direction as issued by the District Magistrate, Nainital on 28.05.2019. The decision on the application of the petitioner for installation of the Tubewell would be taken by the Jal Sansthan, Executive Engineer, within a period of

¶14

¶15

three weeks from the date of the presentation of the certified copy of this order.

¶16

Subject to the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶17

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 10.06.2019

¶18

Mahinder/

Union of India v. State and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. State and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mastan Singh Panwar Vs Mahant Ashok Prapan Sharma and Another

Dr. Azim Ilyas Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

M/S Western Geco International Limited Vs Union of India and Others

Ramesh Prasad Godiyal Vs Kamala Devi

Rahul Shukla Vs Mona Shukla

Beni Ram Vs State of Uttarakhand