The repair and rectification of existing water regulation machinery (APM) to ensure sanctioned water supply does not amount to an illegal alteration of outlet size or nature and cannot be challenged based on mere apprehensions without cogent material.

Order

By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:

A] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be restrained from making any change in the outlet (APM) of the petitioners chak 24 P.D.

B] By an or direction, the appropriate writ order respondents may kindly be directed to continue the outlet/P-form of chak 24 P.D. as installed and approved vide Annexure – 2.

C] Further the communication dated 31.07.23 (Annexure - may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. ...”

2. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2023 (Annexure-04) issued from the office of the Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division-III, 23rd Division, IGNP, Mohangarh, whereby the Chairman of the Water Users Association has been informed that repair work of APM machines installed at the locations mentioned in the said order is to be undertaken.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the underlying object of the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 is to effect a change in the size of the outlet and the quantity of water supplied to the petitioners. It was contended that such a change in the size of the outlet cannot be undertaken without prior approval of the State Government, as mandated under Rule 11(2) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in “Randheer Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9129/2015 decided on 22.11.2016.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions. He submitted that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and has been filed merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises that the impugned action would result in reduction of water supply to the petitioners.

5. Drawing the attention of the Court to various documents, including the impugned order, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the language of the order clearly indicates that the respondents intend only to repair the APM machines installed to regulate the water supply to the petitioners through their distributors. He further submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondents propose to alter the size, nature, or location of the outlets, or that they are installing APM machines for the first time. It was also submitted that due to damaged or tampered machines, water supply is presently being disturbed, resulting in certain tenants/agriculturists receiving water in excess of the sanctioned supply. Learned counsel emphasized that repair/ rectification of APM machines would, in fact, benefit the petitioners by ensuring supply of water in accordance with the sanctioned P-form.

6. Heard.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court prima facie finds that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived. There is no material on record to indicate that the respondents are effecting any change in the size, nature, or location of the water outlets of the petitioners. The action initiated by the respondents for repair of already installed APM machines, which are meant to regulate the water supply to agriculturists/tenants, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed illegal or arbitrary.

It is pert