An administrative order canceling a license supersedes previous directives, and the relevant authorities are legally obligated to ensure the strict implementation and enforcement of such cancellation orders.

ORDER

Challenge has been made against the impugned order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the 4^threspondent.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the other farmers of the Chinna Solipalayam and Periya Solipalayam formed a society namely “Shree Mariamman Small Farmers Lift Irrigation Society” and they made a representation requesting permission to pump water from a Well in the patta land in S.No.123/1B of Vadakarai Aththur West to irrigate 174 acres of dry lands owned by the members of the Society. The Government by considering the said request issued certain conditions for drawing water from the Well by stating that the pumping should not be done directly from the Channels/River situated 60 meteres away from the Well. However, the then President of the 5^threspondent laid a pipe line and drawn water directly from the River. Since the members of the 5^th respondent question the act of the then President, he stopped diverting water to the petitioner’s land. Though the petitioner gave a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 27.04.2018, requesting the official respondents to take steps to remove the underneath pipeline and to direct the 5^th respondent to supply water to the petitioner’s land.

3.He would further submit that since the petitioner’s representation was not considered the petitioner approached this Court and as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.29896 of 2018 dated 15.11.2018, the 4^th respondent passed an order dated 19.02.2020, stating that the 5^th respondent has decided to supply water to the petitioner’s land. However, the official respondents have not taken any steps to remove the underground pipe line which was illegally installed by the then President of the 5^th respondent Society. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19.02.2020.

4.He would also submit that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the 2^nd respondent has passed an order dated 11.09.2023 holding that the 5^th respondent has drawn water illegally from the River through underground pipeline and therefore, by virtue dated 11.09.2023, they cancel the license granted for drawing water from the Well. Even though the 2^nd respondent has passed an order dated 11.09.2023, till date the 5^th respondent is drawing water from the River directly through pipeline and the order of the 2^nd respondent has not yet implemented.

5.Learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent would submit as the

2^nd respondent has passed an order dated 11.09.2023, canceling the license granted for drawing water from the Well, the prayer sought for in the present writ petition has becomes infructuous since the order of the 2^nd respondent superseded the impugned order dated 19.02.2020.

6.Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.S.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the order of the 2^nd respondent dated

11.09.2023 will be implemented as expeditiously as possible.

7.In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the view that as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent, the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 11.09.2023 supersedes the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent. However, though the 2^nd respondent’s passed an order against the 5^th respondent on 11.09.2023, by cancelling the license of the 5^th respondent for drawing water from the Well, according to the petitioner, till date, the 5^th respondent is drawing water from the Well. Once the official respondent has passed an order it has to be implemented. Therefore the 2^nd respondent is directed to implement its own order dated 11.09.2023 and ensure that the 5^th respond