JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to Courts.

2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order impugned dated 02.09.2016 (Annex. 7) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may be kindly quashed and set aside.”

3. The matter comes up before this Court under the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954; the Rajasthan Farmers Participation in the Management of Irrigation System Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2000’) and the Rajasthan Farmers Participation in the Management of Irrigation System Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2002’).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner was elected as the unopposed President of Dabbar Distributory Water Users' Association (WUA) pursuant to the election held in the year 2014. Learned counsel further submits that since then the petitioner is working as Chairman of the Managing Committee formed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002, which reads as under:

“16. Appointment of Election officer, Assistant Election officer and their duties:

(1) For every election to fill the seats of the member of Managing Committee and President of Water Users' Association and the Distributory Committee and for the office of the chairperson and member of the Managing Committee of the Project Committee, the Project Authority shall appoint by an order as an Election officer.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the petitioner was removed from the post of the President under Section 23(c) of the Act of 2000 by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 02.09.2016, which stated that the petitioner was removed from the said post for illegal activity and engaging in foul practices with respect to the entries in land revenue records, whereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 27.09.2016 to the said order, while stating that the issue pertaining to errors in entries in the revenue record, were actually due to fault on the part of the State/Department.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not provided the copies of the resolution, on the basis of which the petitioner was removed from the said post of President, passed by the Committee members, despite repeated applications to respondent No. 3 in that regard.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents submits that Sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 2000 lay down the object of the said Act and the functions of the Water Users' Association, respectively. Learned counsel further submits that in light of the petitioner's misuse of the post of the President to reduce the supply of water by five minutes to some persons and providing the same to other persons, which has been established through competent reports and the conclusion was arrived at by the competent authority after providing the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing, and after following the due process laid down in the law.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that under Section 45 of the Act of 2000, the competent authority passed the impugned order with 02.09.2016 with due competence. Learned counsel also submits that Section 45 read with Section 5 of the Act of 2000 clearly imply that the dissolution of the managing committee means removal of any person from the managing committee as including the removal of president as well, and that under Section 2 sub-section (1)(c) read with Section 22 and Section 45 of the Act of 2000, the Chief Engineer is the competent authority.

Section 2 sub-section (1) (c) reads as follows:

“2. Definitions:

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

(c) “Competen