The court emphasized that interim orders protect petitioners' rights without infringing upon the rights of other legally entitled persons, affirming the necessity of due process in administrative actions.

Order :

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20801/2024

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.06.2024 whereby the petitioners were deprived of a new construction of pucca watercourse which was earlier sanctioned and simultaneously they were also deprived of allotted volume of the water which they were drawing from the kutcha watercourse.

2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, these orders have been passed citing an interim order dated 17.02.2023 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2927/2023.

3. Ms. Mehali Mehta assistant to Mr. S.S. Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General has sought an adjournment on the ground that further more instructions are required and the copy of the writ petition has also not been served.

4. In this case, still no notices have been issued to the respondents.

5. I have gone through the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2927/2023 which reads as follows:

“1. Challenging the order dated 17.01.2023, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have passed the impugned order simply on the basis of letter/communication sent by District Collector, without following the due procedure.

2. It is also contended that size of the water outlet has been reduced and additionally agriculture land has been included in petitioner’s chak plan that too without issuing any notice to the affected farmers.

3. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable within six weeks.

4. Meanwhile, the water supply being received by the petitioners as on today, shall be maintained by the parties.”

6. A glance of the said order would only reflect that the petitioners therein raising a challenge against the action of the authorities changing the water outlet. According to the petitioners therein by change of water outlet, the water drawing volume would get decreased. In the said circumstances, the petitioners have moved before this Court challenging the shifting of water outlet.

7. This Court passed an order protecting the rights of the petitioners therein to draw the same volume of the water which they were drawing if the outlet remained unchanged. The interim orders passed by this Court in other writ petition do not take away the rights of other farmers who are entitled to draw the water from the previous existing watercourse within their quota. By virtue of the present impugned order the petitioners were deprived of drawing of the water from the kutcha watercourse and also no action has been taken to continue the construction of new watercourse, in spite, of specific orders passed by the appropriate authority.

8. This Court feels that there is no specific direction in the other writ petition wherein only interests of the petitioners were protected. That order never said that the other legally entitled persons, who were drawing the water from the kutcha watercourse shall be stopped to draw the water. Equally, they are also entitled to draw the water within their quota. In the said circumstances, the impugned order is stayed and the Executive Engineer is directed to allow the petitioners to draw the water which they were drawing through the kutcha watercourse until further orders.

9. Liberty is given to the respondents to move an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India .

10. Admit.

11. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within a period of four weeks.

12. Post the matter on 08.04.2025 for final hearing..

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2927/2023

Admit.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within a period of four weeks.

Respondents are directed to file reply within a period of eight weeks.

Post the matter on 08.04.2025 for final hearing.