DHIRENDRA PRASAD BALODI Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 8.6.2009 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/S.D.O. (The Kumaon and Garhwal Water (Collection, Retention and Distribution) Act, 1975) and the judgment and order dated 2.2.2011 passed by the Collector Tehri Garhwal in Appeal No. 3 of 2009 Dhirendra Prasad v. Gajendra Dutt, by which the appeal of the Petitioner has been dismissed. It has been further prayed to quash the order dated 14.3.2011 passed by the Respondent No. 1.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition, are that an application was moved by the Respondent No. 2 before Collector Tehri Garhwal with a prayer that the Petitioner be restrained from interfering in the water supply of the Respondent No. 2 In the said application, Respondent No. 2 also arrayed the Petitioner as opposite party. The application was moved before Collector, Tehri Garhwal, which was transferred to the Prescribed Authority, for disposal. After hearing both the parties, learned Prescribed Authority has held that the chamber for retention of water was constructed and pipeline was laid in violation of Section 6 of The Kumaun and Garhwal Water (Collection, Retention and Distribution) Act, 1975 (for short, the Act) without obtaining prior permission from S.D.O. and it was observed that since the permission is mandatory as per provision of Section 6 of the Act, the Petitioner may apply for obtaining permission Under Section 8 of the said Act. It was also directed that if the permission is not obtained, then as per the provisions of Section 10 of said Act, illegal construction be removed. Liberty was also given to the Respondent No. 2 to obtain permission to construct a separate chamber beneath 2 feets from the chamber, constructed by the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the Prescribed Authority Sub Divisional Officer, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, that too was dismissed on the ground that no permission was obtained by the Petitioner to construct the chamber as per provisions of Section 6 of the Act and that it is an illegal construction.

(3.) THIS fact has not been denied by the Petitioner that the permission was not obtained by him and he had constructed a chamber to collect water and laid pipeline up to his house.