Order : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present special appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed. 3. Briefly noted the facts in the present case are that the appellant was elected as President of the Water Users Association Sahuwala on 20.02.2022 and he was also elected as the Chairman of the Water Distribution Committee of HH Canal on 09.03.2022. The respondent No.4 was having an agricultural land in Sahuwala and there was a water turn dispute between the respondent No.4 and his uncle Brij Lal. The on-going dispute was resolved by the Superintending Engineer, Sri Ganganagar by passing an order dated 16.11.2021. The effect of the order dated 16.11.2021 was required to be given to by the Committee/President of the Water Users Association, Sahuwala. Since the water turn was not provided to the respondent No.4, therefore, he preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13262/2023 (Mohit Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein, this Court on 19.10.2023 passed an interim order directing the respondents to explore the possibilities for starting the water turn to present respondent No.4- Mohit as per the revenue record. The order dated 19.10.2023 was required to be complied with by the Committee headed by the present appellant. Since the order of this Court was not complied with, the present appellant was served with a notice dated 19.12.2023, whereby, the Committee headed by the appellant was directed to produce the entire record before the Superintending Engineer and appear before him on 20.12.2023. 4. On 20.12.2023, the present appellant appeared before the Superintending Engineer along with the record and submitted his entire explanation, which is placed on record as Annexure-8. Dissatisfied by the explanation furnished by the present appellant, the Superintending Engineer passed the order dated 22.12.2023, whereby, the Managing Committee of the Water Users Association, Sahuwala was dissolved with immediate effect. In these circumstances, the present appellant preferred the writ petition before this Court and the learned Single Bench, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 20.02.2024. Hence, the present appeal has been filed. 5. In these circumstances, the present appellant preferred the writ petition before this Court and the learned Single Bench, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 20.02.2024. Hence, the present appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the present appellant is a duly elected person of the Water Users Association, Sahuwala and for no fault, by passing the order dated 22.12.2023, not only the Association has been dissolved but also the appellant has been removed without giving any opportunity of hearing. He further submits that the action of the respondents is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He also submits that the order passed by the Superintending Engineer on 16.11.2021 and the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court were duly and faithfully complied with by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that at the end of the present appellant, no action was pending and, therefore, he cannot be punished for non complying of the directions issued by this Court as well as the order of the Superintending Engineer. He further submits that very strangely, the Managing Committee comprises of five persons has been dissolved vide order dated 22.12.2023 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the other four members of the Committee too. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in due compliance of the orders passed by the Superintending Engineer, the requisite water slips were issued and the same have been placed on record, but the Superintending Engineer has not taken into consideration the compliance made by the appellant. He, therefore, submits that the order dated 22.12.2023, on the face of it, is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. Thus, he prays that the present appeal as well as the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 22.12.2023 may be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submits that despite serving repeated reminders to the appellant, he has not complied with the directions issued by the Superintending Engineer vide his letter dated 16.11.2021. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that even the orders passed by this Court were not duly and faithfully complied with and, therefore, the appellant was issued with a show cause notice dated 19.12.2023. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that even the orders passed by this Court were not duly and faithfully complied with and, therefore, the appellant was issued with a show cause notice dated 19.12.2023. He also submits that in compliance of the notice, the reply was though filed by the appellant, but no satisfactory explanation was provided and, therefore, the Superintending Engineer was well within his right to pass the order dated 22.12.2023 dissolving the Committee of the Water Users Association, Sahuwala. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the learned Single Bench has taken note of all the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in the order passed by the learned Single Bench. 9. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have scanned the entire record including the orders impugned in the present case. 10. It is true that the appellant has been elected as the Chairman of the Water Users Association, Sahuwala and while discharging his duties, he was under an obligation to comply with the directions issued by the Superintending Engineer. The Committee of the Water Users Association, Sahuwala has been constituted to facilitate irrigation water supply to the farmers in the area. In the present case, the allegation against the present appellant is that despite the orders having been passed by the Superintending Engineer and this Court to fix the water turn of the present respondent No.4, he has failed to carry out the same. As per the appellant, in due compliance of the orders passed by this Court as well as the Superintending Engineer, he has placed on record the water slips, which have been issued by the Water Users Association, Sahuwala. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, while considering the case of the appellant, all those materials were required to be taken into consideration by the Superintending Engineer. We also note that before dissolving the Committee of the Water Users Association, Sahuwala, no notice was issued either to the appellant or to the other members of the Committee. A perusal of notice dated 19.12.2023 clearly shows that the appellant was called for by the Superintending Engineer along with the record of the case to furnish his explanation. We also note that before dissolving the Committee of the Water Users Association, Sahuwala, no notice was issued either to the appellant or to the other members of the Committee. A perusal of notice dated 19.12.2023 clearly shows that the appellant was called for by the Superintending Engineer along with the record of the case to furnish his explanation. The explanation was furnished by the appellant, however, dissatisfied by the same, the order dated 22.12.2023 has been passed. 12. It is worth noticing here that in compliance of the directions issued by this Court as well as by the Superintending Engineer, the water slips had been issued by the Managing Committee of the Water Users Association, Sahuwala and the same having been received by father of respondent No.4 as is evident from page no.33 of the writ petition, however, the same have not been taken note of by the Superintending Engineer while passing the order dated 22.12.2023 as well as the learned Single Judge. 13. Section 45 of the Rajasthan Farmers Participation in Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 though does not provide for opportunity of hearing to be granted before dissolution of the Managing Committee of Farmers’ Organization, but this Court feels that if a Committee is being dissolved on account of any embezzlement, fraud, abuse of powers and functions or any other act of the Managing Committee of the Farmers’ Organization in contravention of the provisions of this Act, then the dissolution will be resulting into an adverse order being passed and if the same is having the civil and evil consequence on the Committee, then, in the considered opinion of this Court, an opportunity of hearing is must. The same will be duly in consonance with the principle of audi alteram partem as it is a settled proposition of law that if the action of body or person entails civil and evil consequence on a person or body, then opportunity of hearing is must. The said position of law was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar & Ors. V/s. D. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. , reported in (2007) 2 SCC 181 wherein it was held as under :- “26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967) IILLJ 266 SC. V/s. D. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. , reported in (2007) 2 SCC 181 wherein it was held as under :- “26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967) IILLJ 266 SC. It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” 14. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India , reported in (1981) 1 SCC 664 while expounding the principle of natural justice observed and held as under :- “106. The principles of natural justice have taken deep root in the judicial conscience of our people, nurtured by Binapani, Kraipak, Mohinder Singh Gill, Maneka Gandhi etc. etc. They are now considered so fundamental as to be "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" and, therefore, implicit in every decision making function, call it judicial, quasi judicial or administrative. Where an authority functions under a statute and the statute provides for the observance of the principles of natural justice in a particular manner, natural justice will have to be observed in that manner and in no other. No wider right than that provided by statute can be claimed nor can the right be narrowed. Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice. The implication of natural justice being presumptive it may be excluded by express words of statute or by necessary intendment. Where the conflict is between the public interest and the private interest, the presumption must necessarily be weak and may, therefore, be readily displaced.” 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Nath Pandey & Ors. V/s. State of U.P. & Ors. , reported in (2009) 12 SCC 40 succinctly reiterated the principle of natural justice and held as under :- “3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Nath Pandey & Ors. V/s. State of U.P. & Ors. , reported in (2009) 12 SCC 40 succinctly reiterated the principle of natural justice and held as under :- “3. … Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice.” 16. In the present case, the order dated 22.12.2023 is having adverse effects on the rights as well as reputation of the appellant and the Committee, therefore, a pre-decisional hearing was required to be provided. Since the appellant and the other members of the Committee have not been afforded any opportunity of hearing and the order is having a penal consequence of dissolution of elected body, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the action of the Superintending Engineer is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. 17. In view of the discussions made above, the present special appeal merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant also stands allowed and the order dated 22.12.2023 is quashed and set aside. 18. However, it is made clear that if the appellant and the Committee are not complying with the directions issued by this Court or the directions issued by the Superintending Engineer, then the respondents will be free to take appropriate actions in the matter after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Committee and the appellant.