Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/2195/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION-FOR CONTEMPT No.2195 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No.12020 of 2009
=====================================================
MUSTAQ
GULAM MOHMED BALOCH & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
RAJKOT
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
BHIKHABHAI
L PIPALIYA & 4 - Opponent(s)
=====================================================
Appearance
:
MR MUKUL SINHA for Applicant(s) : 1
- 2.
MR HS MUNSHAW for Opponent(s) : 1,
MR NIRAJ SONI, AGP for
Opponent(s) : 2,
MR PREMAL R JOSHI for Opponent(s) : 3,
NOTICE
NOT RECD BACK for Opponent(s) : 4 -
5.
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date
: 17/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
The
basis of the present petition is the alleged breach and
non-compliance to the order dated 16.03.2011 passed by this Court in
Special Civil Application No.12020 of 2009 whereby direction was
issued to the respondents to ensure that the water from the lake is
taken through the canal to the adjacent villages in question and it
was also observed that if necessary, the road constructed by
respondent No.3 be demolished and the cost may be recovered from
respondent No.3.
We
have heard Mr.Sinha for the applicants, Mr.Munshaw for opponent No.1,
Mr.Soni for opponent No.2 and Mr.Premal Joshi for opponent No.3.
It
prima facie appears that it is on account of the unauthorized
leveling of earth work nearby the reservoir from 23 ft. to 58 ft. the
complication arose in the normal flow of water and not only that but,
as stated in the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the District
Panchayat, on account of raising the height of earth work, Head
Regulator of reservoir had also become invisible and part of the
canal is filled up. It was submitted on behalf of respondent No.1 by
Mr.Munshaw that as the amount was not deposited by respondent No.2,
the work has been delayed but now the amount of Rs.12 lac has been
deposited. It has also been submitted that it is only after the level
of water goes down about 10 ft., the District Panchayat will be in a
position to remove the hight raised of the earth nearby the reservoir
by respondent No.3. In the submission made by Mr.Munshaw in the
affidavit-in-reply that respondent No.3 has
unauthorizedly raised the level of earth work, he submitted that
additional amount may also be required for leveling of the earth
work.
Under
the circumstances, following directions deserve to be passed:
(i) respondent
No.1 shall report to this Court time within which, after reduction of
the water level, the earth work, which has been unauthorizedly done
by respondent No.3, can be removed;
(ii) respondent
No.3 shall deposit the additional amount, if it is so requisitioned
by respondent No.1, within 01 (one) week from such intimation by
respondent No.1;
(iii) till
then, as declared in the affidavit, the irrigation facility shall
continue.
After
the water level is reduced, within 01 (one) month, the earth work,
unauthorizedly undertaken by respondent No.3, shall be removed.
In
our view, the aforesaid directions will be required to be complied
with. However, as the
main matter is still pending, we find that any grievance further on
the other incidental aspects can be raised in the substantive
petition which is pending before
the Division Bench. If the aforesaid directions issued by this Court
is not complied with in the
present proceedings, it
would be open to the applicants to move this Court by revival of the
present proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act.
Disposed
of accordingly.
Sd/-
[JAYANT
PATEL,J]
Sd/-
[R.M.CHHAYA,
J ]
***
Bhavesh*
Top