Gujarat High Court
Adarsh vs State on 11 February, 2011
Author: R. Tripathi
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1865/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1865 of 2011
=================================================
ADARSH
SINCHAI SAHBHAGI PIYAT SAHAKARI MANDLI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 3 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1,
Ms.MAITHILI MEHTA, ASST
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2 - 4.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 11/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Shree Adarsh Sinchai Sahbhagi Piyat Sahakari Mandli is before this Court through its President, Chandubha Agarsang Jadeja praying that order dated 28.01.2011 be quashed and set aside.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the order is passed without any notice to the Mandali for an incident which took place on 3rd December 2009, wherein the President of the Mandali was attacked by an agriculturist, who was drawing water for irrigation of his lands from the canal. The case of the petitioner is that the said drawing of water was without necessary permission from the concerned person like the President of the Mandali or the Chowkidar.
The learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that though the land of that agriculturist is not situated within 'the command area' to which the Mandali is authorised to supply water, the Executive Engineer permitted that agriculturist, on humanitarian grounds, to draw water. This shows that the Mandali is not working in a lawful manner by allowing that agriculturist to draw water. The learned advocate for the petitioner next invited attention of the Court to a letter dated 24th December 2010, a recommendation made by the Executive Engineer to the District Superintendent of Police for taking necessary action in the matter of assault on the President of the Mandali on 3rd December 2009. This is something which is not known to law.
This Court is at loss to understand as to what business the Executive Engineer has to make a recommendation to the District Superintendent of Police. The learned advocate for the petitioner tried to explain the conduct of the Executive Engineer by saying that, 'as the Police was not registering F.I.R. the petitioner made the Executive Engineer to writ this letter of recommendation. This Court deems it necessary to condemn such a practice of seeking recommendation from the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department to the District Superintendent of Police for taking necessary action, which even otherwise the Police is duty bound to take.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the entire action of issuing the order in question dated 28th January 2011 (Annexure 'A', Page 14) is at the instance of a local MLA. The Court does not find any substance in these averments/ allegations. In the order it is clearly mentioned that, 'the cooperative society is not able to manage its affairs on the principles of cooperation and the incident of assault on the President is a matter of concern and therefore, for the present the recognition of the cooperative society is suspended and the irrigation work is directed to be resumed by the Government agency'. In view of the aforesaid discussion the Court finds no reason to interfere with order dated 28th January 2011. The petition is disposed of.
4. It is made clear that non entertainment of this petition does not take away the right of the petitioner-Mandali to ventilate its grievances before the appropriate authority.
(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) karim Top