Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1258 (RAJ)

Vedpal v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-04-22

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The present petitions are listed in the 'orders' category, however, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are being heard and decided finally. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are the agriculturists having their agriculture field in Hanumangarh and Sri Ganganagar Districts of Rajasthan. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that on account of an inspection being carried out, the petitioners were found to have taken water beyond their permissible limits by illegal means. The matter was got investigated and on the report of the Assistant Engineer, an order was passed by the Executive Engineer, whereby, the petitioners were saddled with a penalty to pay an amount to the extent of 20 times of the rate of regular water supply and to stop the supply of water for one year. On an appeal being filed by the petitioners, the order passed by the Executive Engineer was also confirmed by the Superintending Engineer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the Appellate Authority has not dealt with their submissions made before it and the orders have been passed in a cryptic manner without assigning any reason. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that extreme penalty has been imposed by the respondents. They further submit that in pursuance of the interim orders granted by this Court, the penalty amount has been deposited and if the water facility is disconnected for a period of one year, the same will lead to the starvation of the petitioners as the only means of their livelihood is the earnings from cultivation/ agriculture. They, therefore, submit that since the penalty amount has already been deposited, the penalty of stoppage of water for one year may be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that it is for the first time the petitioners have indulged themselves in taking the water by illegal means. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that in the present case, the petitioners have been prosecuted by way of filing the FIRs and prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. She, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in the orders passed by the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer respectively. 7. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that in the present case, the petitioners have been prosecuted by way of filing the FIRs and prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. She, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in the orders passed by the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer respectively. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case including the impugned orders passed by the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer. 8. The fact that the petitioners are the agriculturists and certain quantity of water has been taken by them dehors the law. The fact that such act of the petitioners cannot be condoned or taken lightly but taking into consideration the lenient view in the matter, since the petitioners are the farmers and their livelihood depends upon cultivation and agricultural activities of their land, this Court considers that it will be too harsh to discontinue the water supply of the agriculture field of the petitioners for one year. The petitioners have already deposited the penalty amount as ordered by this Court while passing the interim orders. 9. In view of the discussions made above, this Court feels that since the petitioners have committed their first offence and they have already paid the penalty amount, therefore, taking a lenient view in the matter, if the penalty order is modified to the extent of payment of penalty only with the condition that in case the petitioners are found involved in such activities in future, the authorities will be free to impose the punishment of payment of penalty as well as debarring the petitioners from the water supply facility for a period of one year as provided in the Rules. 10. Thus, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The penalty order passed by the Executive Engineer and affirmed by the Superintending Engineer is modified to the extent that the petitioners shall deposit the amount as ordered in the impugned orders only and the discontinuance of the water facility for one year is quashed and set aside being their first offence. 11. It is made clear that the observations made in this order will not come in the way or will influence the criminal proceedings undertaken by the Department against the petitioners.