Gordhan and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1071201
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-04-2013
AppellantGordhan and Others
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
cwp no.4725 o”1. high court for the states of punjab & haryana at chandigarh cwp no.4725 of 2012 date of decision:04.03.2013 gordhan and others ...petitioner(s) versus state of haryana and others ...respondent(s) coram: hon'ble mr.justice rameshwar singh malik 1 to be referred to the reporters or no.?.”2. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?. present: mr.g.s.hooda, advocate, for the petitioners.ms.kirti singh, dag, haryana. mr.ramesh hooda, advocate, for respondents nos.4 to 7. rameshwar singh malik, j. (oral) feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioners have approached this court by way of instant writ petition under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus. learned counsel for the petitioners.relying upon the order dated 2.6.2011 (annexure p-7) passed in cwp no.10318 of 2011 (gordhar singh and others v. state of haryana and others).submits that he issued a legal notice dated 10.10.2011 (annexure p-9) which was replied vide reply dated 23.12.2011 (annexure p-10) while proceeding on an erroneous approach because in the meantime, the private cwp no.4725 o”2. respondents have already moved an application dated 3.11.2011 seeking the sanctioning of watercours.on permanent basis. however, learned counsel for respondents nos.4 to 7 has placed before the court the photocopy of the application dated 3.11.2011 moved by respondent no.4 as well as the report dated 14.9.2012 to the effect that since the grievance of the applicants (respondents nos.4 to 7 herein) has already been redressed, no further order was called for. learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the report dated 14.9.2012 made by the divisional canal officer is factually incorrect because the application moved by the private respondents was for sanctioning the permanent watercourse. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record of the case, the divisional canal officer, jui, water services division, bhiwani-respondent no.2 is directed to consider the application dated 3.11.2011 moved on behalf of respondents nos.4 to 7 seeking the sanctioning of permanent watercours.by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law and after granting due opportunity of being heard to both the parties. respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the matter at an early date and in any case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. with the observations made above, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 04.03.2013 (rameshwar singh malik) mks judge
Judgment:

CWP No.4725 o”

1. HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4725 of 2012 Date of decision:04.03.2013 Gordhan and others ...Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK 1

To be referred to the Reporters or No.?.”

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?.

Present: Mr.G.S.Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Ms.Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana.

Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for respondents Nos.4 to 7.

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.

(Oral) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus.

Learned counsel for the petitioneRs.relying upon the order dated 2.6.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed in CWP No.10318 of 2011 (Gordhar Singh and others v.

State of Haryana and others).submits that he issued a legal notice dated 10.10.2011 (Annexure P-9) which was replied vide reply dated 23.12.2011 (Annexure P-10) while proceeding on an erroneous approach because in the meantime, the private CWP No.4725 o”

2. respondents have already moved an application dated 3.11.2011 seeking the sanctioning of watercouRs.on permanent basis.

However, learned counsel for respondents Nos.4 to 7 has placed before the Court the photocopy of the application dated 3.11.2011 moved by respondent No.4 as well as the report dated 14.9.2012 to the effect that since the grievance of the applicants (respondents Nos.4 to 7 herein) has already been redressed, no further order was called for.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the report dated 14.9.2012 made by the Divisional Canal Officer is factually incorrect because the application moved by the private respondents was for sanctioning the permanent watercourse.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record of the case, the Divisional Canal Officer, Jui, Water Services Division, Bhiwani-respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application dated 3.11.2011 moved on behalf of respondents Nos.4 to 7 seeking the sanctioning of permanent watercouRs.by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law and after granting due opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

Respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the matter at an early date and in any case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

With the observations made above, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

04.03.2013 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE