REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PREM SINGH Appellant

V/S

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

REX V. ELECTRICITY COMMISSIONER EX PARTE LONDON ELECTRICITY JOINT COMMITTEE CO. [REFERRED TO]
REX V. LONDON COUNTRY COUNCIL EX PARTE ENTERTAINMENTS PRODUCTION ASSOCIATION LTD. [REFERRED TO]
BAGA RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
M. C. GUPTA V. A. K. GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
TODA RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
PROVINCE OF BOMBAY VS. KHUSHALDAS S ADVANI SINCE DECEASED AND AFTER HIM HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE A GOVINDRAM KHUSHALDAS AND B RAMCHAND KHUSHALDAS [REFERRED TO]
GULLAPALLI NAGESWARA RAO VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. CHAKOBHAI GHELABHAI AND CO [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION U P ALLAHABAD VS. GHANSHYAM DAS GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE H H ANNISH GOWDA VS. C D GOVINDA RAO [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. H C GOEL [REFERRED TO]
PURTABPORE CO LIMITED VS. CANE COMMISSIONER OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM NARESH LAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. ASIS KUMAR MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIKA JHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. BROJO NATH GANGULY / TARUN KANTI SENGUPTA [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD MATHUR VS. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY [REFERRED TO]
UMA KANT UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN JAIPUR VS. BHIKALAL JAIN [REFERRED TO]
CHANCELLOR DR PRAFULLA KUMAR MOHAPATRA VS. BIJAYANANDA KAR:BIJAYANANDA KAR [REFERRED TO]
ANIRUDHSINHJI KARANSINHJI JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. RAJA MAHENDRA PAL [REFERRED TO]
NASHIK DIOCESAN COUNCIL TRUST VS. SUNITA YOGESH PANDIT [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN JANDK STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION VS. FEYAZ AHMED MALIK [REFERRED TO]
LT COL P R CHAUDHRY RETD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions, the common questions of facts and law are involved and the common impugned order dated 18-10-2000 passed by the Superintending Engineer, respondent No. 2, is under challenge. By the said impugned order, respondent No. 2 has passed certain directions to respondent No. 1 to readjust/remodel certain outlets.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that in all these petitions, petitioners are the agriculture tenure-holders having irrigation facilities and they are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18-10-2000. The writ petitions have been filed on the grounds that under the garb of issuing the rectification orders, the Appellate Authority has interfered with the irrigation outlets and the order stands vitiated for the reason that he is the Appellate Authority under the Act and the same could not have been passed by him as it deprived the petitioners from the right of appeal. It has further been contended that no notice under Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Drainage Rules, 1957 (for short, "the Rules, 1957") had been given to the petitioners.

(3.) On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that it is only rectification, re-fixation, re-designing or readjusting the outlets to repair them properly as during the course of time, the same resulted in deviation and the same are discharging more or lesser quantity of water than as it should be as per their original respective designs. Thus, it is not an order which is likely to adversely affect the petitioners and for doing so, no notice under Rule 11(3) of the Rules, 1957 is required. Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

Click here to view full judgment.

PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address