JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to Courts. 2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order impugned dated 02.09.2016 (Annex. 7) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may be kindly quashed and set aside.” 3. The matter comes up before this Court under the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954; the Rajasthan Farmers Participation in the Management of Irrigation System Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2000’) and the Rajasthan Farmers Participation in the Management of Irrigation System Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2002’). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner was elected as the unopposed President of Dabbar Distributory Water Users' Association (WUA) pursuant to the election held in the year 2014. Learned counsel further submits that since then the petitioner is working as Chairman of the Managing Committee formed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002, which reads as under: “16. Appointment of Election officer, Assistant Election officer and their duties: (1) For every election to fill the seats of the member of Managing Committee and President of Water Users' Association and the Distributory Committee and for the office of the chairperson and member of the Managing Committee of the Project Committee, the Project Authority shall appoint by an order as an Election officer.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the petitioner was removed from the post of the President under Section 23(c) of the Act of 2000 by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 02.09.2016, which stated that the petitioner was removed from the said post for illegal activity and engaging in foul practices with respect to the entries in land revenue records, whereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 27.09.2016 to the said order, while stating that the issue pertaining to errors in entries in the revenue record, were actually due to fault on the part of the State/Department. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not provided the copies of the resolution, on the basis of which the petitioner was removed from the said post of President, passed by the Committee members, despite repeated applications to respondent No. 3 in that regard. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents submits that Sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 2000 lay down the object of the said Act and the functions of the Water Users' Association, respectively. Learned counsel further submits that in light of the petitioner's misuse of the post of the President to reduce the supply of water by five minutes to some persons and providing the same to other persons, which has been established through competent reports and the conclusion was arrived at by the competent authority after providing the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing, and after following the due process laid down in the law. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that under Section 45 of the Act of 2000, the competent authority passed the impugned order with 02.09.2016 with due competence. Learned counsel also submits that Section 45 read with Section 5 of the Act of 2000 clearly imply that the dissolution of the managing committee means removal of any person from the managing committee as including the removal of president as well, and that under Section 2 sub-section (1)(c) read with Section 22 and Section 45 of the Act of 2000, the Chief Engineer is the competent authority. Section 2 sub-section (1) (c) reads as follows: “2. Definitions: (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (c) “Competent Authority” means the Authority appointed under section 22...” Section 5 reads as follows: “5. Managing Committee of Water Users' Association and Election of its President and Members: (1) There shall be a Managing Committee for every Water Users' Association. (2) The Project Authority shall make arrangements for the election of President of the Managing Committee of the Water Users' Association by direct election from among its members by the method of secret ballot in the manner as may be prescribed. (2) The Project Authority shall make arrangements for the election of President of the Managing Committee of the Water Users' Association by direct election from among its members by the method of secret ballot in the manner as may be prescribed. (3) The Project Authority shall also cause arrangements for the election of a Managing Committee consisting of one Member from each of the territorial constituencies of a water users' area, by the method of secret ballot in the manner as may be prescribed. Provided that where a land owner holds land in more than one territorial constituencies of the water users' area, he shall be eligible to take part in election for membership of the Managing Committee only from one territorial constituency for which he opts in the manner as may be prescribed. (4) If, at an election held under sub-section (2) or (3), the President or the Members of the Managing Committee are not elected, fresh elections shall be held: Provided that the Project Authority may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing from time to time, postpone elections. (5) The President and the Members of the Managing Committee shall, if not recalled earlier under section 10, be in office for a period of five years, from the date of the first meeting. (6) The Managing Committee shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of the water users association.” Section 22 reads as follows: “22. Appointment of competent authority and his functions: (1) the Government may by notification appoint such officer of the Irrigation Department or the Command Area Development Department or any other Department of the State, as may be considered necessary, to be the competent authority for every Farmers' Organisation for the purpose of this Act. (2) The competent authority appointed under sub-section (1) shall be responsible to the respective Farmers' Organisation in the implementation and execution of all decisions taken by the farmers' Organisation in the manner as may be prescribed and shall provide technical advice and ensure that the work is executed in accordance with the technical parameters” Section 45 of the Act of 2000 reads as follows: “45. Dissolution of Managing Committee of a Farmers' Organisation: In case of any embezzlement, fraud, abuse of powers and functions or any other act on the part of Managing Committee of a Farmers' Organisation in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the Competent Authority of the project area shall have power to dissolve the Managing Committee and to make transitional arrangements to carry out the functions of the Farmers' Organisation provided that in case of such dissolution the Managing Committee shall be re-constituted within a period of three months from the date of dissolution.” 9. Learned counsel for the respondents thus submits that the order of removal of the petitioner from the post of President of the aforesaid Water Users' Association, was passed in accordance with law, and that the averments made regarding personal enmity are not established by the required substantiation and appropriate pleadings. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the tenure of the petitioner as the President of the said Water Users' Association has already come to an end, and that fresh elections have been held for the said post. Thus, as per learned counsel, any adjudication at this stage, would merely be an academic exercise. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court does not find that the impugned order dated 02.09.2016 suffers from any legal infirmity, as the same has been passed in accordance with law by the competent authority, i.e. the Chief Engineer, in the present case. 12. This Court, in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, derives strength from the fact that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing by the respondent/Department, and that the impugned order was passed after receipt of the report of the concerned authority; the averment made by the petitioner as to non-receipt of copies of the resolution passed by the concerned managing committee, terminating him from the post of President, is baseless, as no such applications were made nor placed on the record before this Court. 13. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.