Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 876 (RAJ)

Bhagirath Pareek v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-03-14

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.3012/2022, 3170/2022 and 3296/2022, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the respondent Superitending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh. 2. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.3244/2022 and 3379/2022, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resource, Division-II,Hanumangarh. 3. The petitioners are claiming that the controversy involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the decisions rendered by this Court in several writ petitions. The petitioners have pressed into service the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3166/2022 decided on 09.03.2022. 4. Counsel for the respondent-department has also submitted that the controversy involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the various decisions rendered by this Court in various writ petitions and it is also submitted that the present writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3166/2022. 5. Some private persons have filed two separate applications (Inward Nos.01/22) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.3244/2022 and 3379/2022 for being impleaded as party respondents in these writ petitions respectively. Along with these applications, several orders passed by the respondent authorities have been placed on record. 6. Mr. Sushil Bishnoi appearing for applicants Manjeet Singh & others has argued that as a matter of fact, the impugned orders dated 17.08.2020 and 29.01.2021 passed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division-II, Hanumangarh have already been complied with way back and pursuant to the said orders, water outlets have already been fixed. It is submitted that when the agriculturists situated on tail end of the minor, such as applicants, were not in receipt of adequate water supply to their agricultural fields, they have made a complaint before the authorities concerned and under the orders of the District Collector, Hanumangarh, a committee of engineers was constituted and a report was submitted that pursuant to the orders dated 17.08.2020 and 29.01.2021, various outlets in excess number were established and the size of the outlets was also bigger than the sanctioned size. The committee has specifically reported that one Mr. Jagan Lal Berwa, Assistant Engineer of the respondent-department has established the outlets in illegal manner without informing the department. 7. The committee has specifically reported that one Mr. Jagan Lal Berwa, Assistant Engineer of the respondent-department has established the outlets in illegal manner without informing the department. 7. Learned counsel has submitted that now when the authorities are going to change the size of the outlets as per the sanctioned plan, the petitioners have rushed to this Court only to save their illegal outlets. Mr. Bishnoi, counsel for the applicants has, therefore, argued that the illegal action on the part of the respondent-authorities is required to be investigated and the interest of the agriculturists on the tail end of the minor is to be protected. 8. Mr. H.S. Sandhu, counsel for the petitioners prays for some time to file reply to the applications preferred on behalf of the applicants. 9. However, looking to the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicants are required to be heard as some of the facts which have not been incorporated by the respondent-authorities, in their replies to the writ petitions filed on their behalf which have now been divulged by the applicants. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I deem it appropriate to allow both the applications (Inward Nos. 01/22) for impleading the applicants as party respondents in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.3244/2022 and 3379/2022 respectively. 11. Counsel for the petitioners is directed to file amended cause title in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.3244/2022 and 3379/2022 within a period of one week. Mr. Bishnoi is also allowed to intervene on behalf of applicants in S.B. Civil Writ petition Nos.3012/2022, 3170/2022 and 3296/2022. Copies of the writ petitions be supplied to Mr. Sushil Bishnoi during the course of the day Ms. Abhilasha Bora is directed to explain as to why the facts disclosed by the applicants have not been incorporated in the replies to the writ petitions filed on behalf of the respondent- department. 12. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to direct Ms. Bora to furnish additional affidavits of the Officer Incharge explaining the fact situation by the next date of hearing with a further direction to instruct the Officer Incharge to remain present before this Court on the next date of hearing. 13. Order accordingly.