Back
2025 Supreme(RAJ) 77
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA, J
RADHESHYAM – Appellant
Versus
SANJAY VARMA – Respondent
WCP / 1356 / 2024
Mr. L.D. Khatri, Mr. R.S. Champawat, Mr. Arpit Samriya AAAG, Mr. Ravindra Choudhary, AGC for Mr. Nathus Singh Rathore, AAG
Court emphasized that repeated applications for irrigation facilities are unnecessary and burdensome, mandating continued supply without reapplication.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Allegations of non-compliance with court orders - Petitioners claimed refusal of irrigation facilities despite compliance with prior judgments - Respondents initially agreed to provide irrigation but limited it to one season. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Judicial Directions - Court emphasized that requiring repeated applications from petitioners for irrigation facilities is unnecessary and burdensome. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners alleged non-compliance of court orders regarding irrigation facilities. Respondents had issued a limited order for one crop season, prompting petitioners to seek enforcement of broader irrigation rights.
Findings of Court:
Court directed the respondents to continue supplying irrigation facilities to the petitioners without requiring them to reapply each time.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents' limitation of irrigation facilities to one crop season constituted non-compliance with the court's orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the repeated requirement for applications was unnecessary and could lead to harassment of litigants.
Result: Contempt petitions disposed of with directions to continue irrigation supply.
ORDER :
DINESH MEHTA, J.
1. By way of these contempt petitions, the petitioners have alleged non-compliance of the orders passed in their respective writ petitions.
2. Mr. L.D. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were decided in light of the judgment in the case of Gulsher vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13842/2015) and the petitioners had moved representation(s) alongwith the requisite documents, but in spite of this, the respondents have refused to grant irrigation facilities to the petitioners.
3. Mr. Arpit Samariya, learned counsel for the respondent – State on the basis of reply, submitted that the respondents have decided to grant irrigation facilities to the petitioners by way of order/letter placed on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order issued by the irrigation authorities is only for one crop season, whereas there is no restriction in the order of the Court to confine these irrigation facilities for a particular crop or for a particular period.
5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent – State submitted that the petitioners may apply afresh so that their application for granting irrigation facilities can be considered.
6. According to this Court, asking the petitioners to apply for irrigation facilities again and again is not proper and the same is not only unnecessary, but leads to harassment of the litigants, on the other hand it increases the administrative burden on the respondents.
7. While disposing of these contempt petitions and discharging the contempt notices, the respondents are directed to continue the supply of the irrigation facilities to the petitioners. The respondents can ask the petitioners each year in the first week of April to furnish current status of the case, which is said to have been pending.
