JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. I.A. No. 1/2022 in SBCWP No. 2598/2022 The application seeking impleadment is disposed of in the manner that they are permitted to intervene in this matter. SBCWP Nos. 2301/2022, 2309/22, 2312/2022, 2324/2022 and 2598/2022 1. Since in all these writ petitions, common questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of clarity, the facts from SBCWP No. 2301/2022 are being taken into account. 3. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition claiming the following relief: "(i) The impugned order dated 31.01.2022 (Annex-P/6) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be restrained to change the outlet of Chak 5-SGR without following Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955. (ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Writ Petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing before the changes, in pursuance of the impugned order dated 31.01.2022 are being given effect to. Learned counsel further submits that Rule 11(2) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (for short, 'the Rules of 1955') requires the respondents to take proper approval from the State Government. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Randheer Singh & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 9129/2015, decided on 22.11.2016). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that even in the impugned order, it has been observed that the interest of the farmers shall be protected. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the respondents shall give a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before giving effect to the impugned order dated 31.01.2022. 8. Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, learned counsel, who has moved the application seeking impleadment on behalf of the agriculturists of tail end, submits that there is no requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing to the agriculturists in terms of Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955. 9. 8. Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, learned counsel, who has moved the application seeking impleadment on behalf of the agriculturists of tail end, submits that there is no requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing to the agriculturists in terms of Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, along with the aforementioned judgment cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that a limited proposition in this case is that the petitioners have to be given a proper opportunity of hearing before giving effect to the impugned order, and also the respondents need to abide by Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955. 10. It is clear that the proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners, and though the learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out a circular dated 19.08.2011 to contend that no special sanction is required to be taken from the State Government, if the outlet is being modified/changed as a result of modernization process, but the same does not permit the respondents to deviate from the legislative mandate of Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955. 11. In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed, and accordingly, the respondents are directed to give a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners so also the applicants-agriculturists of the tail end and also deal with the compliance of Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955, before giving effect to the impugned order dated 31.01.2022. 12. The stay application as well as all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.