DAYALJI BECHARBHAI BHIMANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the Order dated 30.12.2009, passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Superintending Engineer, Rajkot Irrigation Circle, Rajkot, and to implement the Order dated 01.12.2009, passed by the State Government. The petitioners have further prayed to award appropriate compensation to the petitioners and other farmers to compensate the damage caused to them by the arbitrary and mala fide action of the concerned officers of the State Government, more particularly the respondent No.3, and those who have supported the respondent No.3 in this illegal and arbitrary action. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to the Government to hold appropriate inquiry against the erring officers, who are wasting the water, which is the precious national property at the cost of the Government revenue and thereby to recover the loss of revenue from such erring officers. By virtue of the Amendment granted by this Court on 29.01.2010, the petitioners have also prayed for quashing and setting aside the Order dated 27.01.2010, passed by the Joint Secretary, Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply and Kalpasar Department, Gandhinagar.

(2.) This Court has issued Notice on 18.01.2010. On 22.01.2010 the first Draft Amendment was granted, thereby the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are joined as parties and Notice was issued to the newly joined parties. On 28.01.2010, the order was passed by the Court directing the learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing for the State Government to take necessary steps as to how the Order dated 01.12.2009 passed by the State Government can be implemented in the best manner. Thereafter on 01.02.2010, the petition was Admitted and a detailed order was passed whereby the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the respondent - Under Secretary, Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply, Kalpasar Department, was stayed. The respondent No.3 was directed to release total 35 MCFT water from Und-I irrigation Project and the respondent No.3 was further directed to release 03 MCFT water from Und-I Irrigation Project starting from 03.02.2010. The Court has made it very clear that the aforesaid directions were issued in view of the peculiar facts of the case and looking to the law and order situation as well as interest of the persons living in the downstream area since it would not be possible to release the aforesaid quantity of water i.e. 35 MCFT at a time. The respondent No.4 was further directed to provide sufficient police protection for such purpose with a view to see that there is no law and order problem and to ensure that the present order is implemented. The Court is informed that the above interim order was challenged by the aggrieved party before the Division Bench of this Court by way of Letters Patent Appeal and since this being an interim order, the Division Bench refused to interfere in the said order.

(3.) In the above background of the order, the present petition is taken up for the final hearing.