1
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8656/2009.
Hari Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order :: 11th September 2009.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.Vijay Agarwal, for the petitioner.
....
BY THE COURT:
This writ petition, filed way back on 17.08.2005,
remained lying on the defects side; and the defects were
removed only after passing of the peremptory order dated
04.03.2009. The petition has, thus, come up for admission
after four years.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that there had
been subsequent events after filing of the petition and the
matter may be adjourned so as to enable the petitioner to
bring the subsequent events on record. There appears
absolutely no justification that the petitioner has kept this writ
petition pending on the defects side for over four years and
when the matter is placed for admission, an adjournment is
sought for bringing on record the so-called subsequent events.
Prayer for adjournment is declined.
It has been submitted in this writ petition that the
petitioner was granted permission for the facility to pour the
2
brackish water of the tube-well in the canal and to be allowed
equal water of canal in exchange and for the purpose of
irrigation of his agriculture land. However, an order was
passed for stoppage of such facilities on 17.06.2000; and
thereafter, demand was raised against the petitioner by the
Department that came to be challenged and ultimately this
Court allowed the writ petition on 21.05.2003 quashing the
demand and directing the Executive Engineer to decide the
matter afresh.
An order dated 21.06.2004 (Annex.10) as passed by
the Executive Engineer has been placed on record whereby
the Executive Engineer ordered that stoppage of supply of
water due to earlier demand was not proper as the same had
been quashed by the High Court; and further directions were
made for recalculating the amount recoverable. It is submitted
that even the recalculation as made has since been quashed
by the SDO concerned. It is, however, submitted that the
directions for supply of water and regarding abolition of lock
system have not been complied with.
The said order by the Executive Engineer was passed
way back on 21.06.2004 and therein too, the Executive
Engineer observed, while directing that the lock system be
abolished and temporarily the water supply be allowed, that if
3
for any reason, any policy decision would be taken by the
Government or higher officials and any new orders would be
passed, water supply could be modified or stopped.
This Court finds no reason or justification that any
further directions be made in relation to the position that has
continued for over five years since after passing of the said
order by the Executive Engineer on 21.06.2004.
After this much of dictation, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to
withdraw the petition so as to move a proper representation.
Having regard to the circumstances, the petitioner is
permitted to withdraw; and the writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.
The counsel submits that the petitioner may be granted
liberty to make representation. So far taking up of any
proceedings by the petitioner are concerned, this Court has
not passed any order either way and it is for the petitioner to
consider his position and stand; and to take resort to the
appropriate remedies in accordance with law.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
MK