'Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice': Rajasthan HC Raps State For Discontinuing Water Facilities For Irrigation
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the decision of state government discontinuing water facilities through siphons is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioners, who used the supply for irrigating their fields since last 35 years. The court opined that the impugned orders are having civil and evil...
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the decision of state government discontinuing water facilities through siphons is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioners, who used the supply for irrigating their fields since last 35 years.
The court opined that the impugned orders are having civil and evil consequences, and are therefore not sustainable in the eye of the law.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, while allowing the writ petitions and setting aside the impugned orders, observed,
"In the considered opinion of this court, the action taken by the respondents authorities is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded before passing the orders which are having civil and evil consequences, and, therefore, the orders are not sustainable in the eye of the law."
Essentially, petitioners were irrigating their fields since 1989 in pursuance of a decision taken by the State Government in the year 1982 and the water being provided to them through siphons. Thereafter, the State Government, without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, discontinued the same in lieu of impugned orders passed by Deputy Secretary to Govt., Indira Gandhi Nahar Department, Jaipur and Executive Engineer, 9016th Division, Iganap, Bikaner.
Through this writ petition, petitioners sought quashing the impugned orders.
It was made clear by the court that the State Government will be free to give a notice and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, pass a fresh order if they so desire.
The court also ruled that in the event of passing an order against the petitioners discontinuing the water facilities through siphons, the State authorities will not straightaway disconnect the water facilities of the petitioners for a period of 30 days from the date of its decision. Further, the court ordered that the status quo, as exists today, shall be maintained till the authorities decide the matter.
Moreover, the court observed that petitioners are irrigating their fields through siphons for more than 35 years. The court pursued that impugned orders and observed that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners before passing these orders and straightaway the siphons facilities enjoyed by the petitioners were ordered to be disconnected.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order dated 05.04.2018 which affects the water facility of the petitioners through siphons has been discontinued without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to them. He, therefore, prayed that the orders dated 27.11.2017 and 05.04.2018 may be quashed qua the petitioners.
The counsel for the state submitted that the State Government is well within its right to take a decision on distribution of water to the persons like petitioners while considering the demand of the water facilities for irrigation vis-avis drinking purposes. He submitted that with the passage of time, the demand for drinking water has increased manifold and, therefore, the State is under an obligation to give precedence to the supply of water for drinking purposes over the supply of water for irrigation. He also submitted that the State functionaries have taken the decision in larger public interest and, therefore, the orders dated 27.11.2017 and 05.04.2018 are just, proper and correct.
The counsels for the petitioners include Mr. BS Sandhu & Mr. Kuldeep Mathur Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Dhirendra Singh Sodha. The counsel for the respondent includes Mr. Manish Tak, AGC.
Case Title: Ratan Devi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 110