Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHANWAR LAL & ORS. versus STATE & ORS.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BHANWAR LAL & ORS. v STATE & ORS. - CW Case No. 2125 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 5338 (6 November 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

--------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL WRIT No. 2125 of 2007

BHANWAR LAL & ORS.

V/S

STATE & ORS.

Mr. JS BHALERIA for Mr. HS SIDHU, for the appellant / petitioner

Mr. G R GOYAL, for the respondent

Date of Order : 6.11.2007

HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.

ORDER

-----

The matter comes up on the application under

Article 226(3) filed on behalf of the newly added respondents.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that application under Article 226(3) on behalf of these persons is not maintainable.

From perusal of the order sheets of this writ petition it transpires that a very short question is involved in the writ petition being that the Superintending

Engineer passed the order Annexure-2 without hearing the petitioners, and that against this order there was stay by the Irrigation Minister, and that stay has been vacated by oral order. Initially show cause notice was issued on 10.5.2007 but since nobody appeared the writ petition was admitted, and notices were issued.

In my view, in view of this short controversy, the writ petition itself can be disposed of by setting aside

Annexure-2, and directing Superintending Engineer to hear the petitioners afresh, and pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with law.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage that Superintending Engineer has no jurisdiction to pass the order of the nature like

Annexure-2.

It may be clarified that it will be open to the petitioners to raise this contention also before the

Superintending Engineer which contention will be examined by the Superintending Engineer on merits, and if the

Superintending Engineer finds force in the contention, then he would send the matter to the concerned competent authority who is competent to decide the controversy.

With this, the writ petition is allowed as above.

The parties are directed to appear before the

Superintending Engineer on 26.11.2007. Interim order passed by this Court on 30.5.2007 shall continue till 5.12.2007, or till the Superintending Engineer passes any fresh order on the request of the petitioner for stay whichever is earlier.

( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.