AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K.M. Thaker
The petitioners have taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief:
20(B) Be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to quash and set aside the notice dated 2.6.2011, at Annexure-''I'', and also the notice dated 15.06.2011 at Annexure-''J'', issued to all the petitioners and be further pleased to direct the respondents not to take action of removing the pipelines of the petitioners on the basis of the said notices and direct the respondents not to remove pipelines laid by the petitioners on the basis of the order dated 15.11.2008, at Annexure-''B'' and also on the basis of the agreement entered into with the Executive Engineer, Rajkot on the basis of the permission to draw water by the State Government dated 24.11.2009.
Mr. Thakkar, learned Advocate has appeared for the petitioners, Mr. Munshaw, learned Advocate has appeared for respondent no.3 and Mr. Yagnik, learned A.G.P. has appeared for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
It has emerged during the hearing of present petition that in connection with the subject matter of present petition, a Public Interest Litigation being Special Civil Application No. 11290 of 2010 was taken out and the same has been decided by the Hon''ble Division Bench by order dated 28.03.2011. The Hon''ble Division Bench in the said petition has passed certain directions in view of which the competent authority is obliged to take decision with reference to the pipelines laid down by the petitioner for drawing water. One of the directions by the Hon''ble Division Bench obliged the respondent authorities to remove the pipelines.
The said order and directions have been passed after present petition was heard and notice was issued and initial order by way of ad-interim relief requiring the parties to maintain status-quo was passed.
As can be seen from the relief prayed for by the petitioners, it is prayed that the respondents may be restrained from removing the pipelines laid down by the petitioners and directions to the respondents do not to take any action of removing the pipelines laid down by the petitioners is prayed for.
On one hand, it is the allegations of the respondents that the petitioners have illegally and unauthorized laid down the pipelines and are drawing water illegally and unauthorized, whereas the petitioners contend that the pipelines have been laid down by the petitioners pursuant to the permission/authorization granted by the respondents.
The issue as to whether the respondents have granted such permission/authorization or not and the authorization if at all granted then whether it is granted by the competent authority and in accordance with law or not are matters of dispute between the parties.
However, for the sake of examining the petitioners'' contention if it is assumed that the permission/authorization has been granted by the respondents then also it emerges from the record (and even according to the petitioners'' claim) that in August 2011 the period of permission/authorization(which is claimed to have been granted) has expired and that therefore after August 2011 the petitioners are otherwise also not entitled to draw water from the pipelines laid down by them and they are obliged to remove the pipelines.
Besides this, the relief prayed for by the petitioners also run counter to the observation by the Division Bench.
It is in connection with the aforesaid aspect i.e. the alleged authorization/permission granted by the respondent authorities has already expired, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have made applications for renewal/grant of permission/authorization and such applications have been made on 11th October 2011 and18th October 2011 which are pending before the competent authority.
In view of the pendency of the applications, learned counsel for the petitioners requested for permission to withdraw the petition with a view to pursuing such applications which are pending before the competent authority.
At this stage, it is relevant to mention that a separate application being Civil Application No.10021of 2011 has been taken out wherein the applicant has prayed that he may be allowed to join proceedings of present petition since he is interested party in the suit proceedings. In support of the submission that he is interested party, the applicant has relied on the details mentioned in the application. Mr. Gaurav Mehtahas appeared for the applicant.
So far as the said request of learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. for permission to withdraw the petition is concerned, learned Advocates for respondents including the learned Advocate for respondent in C.A.No.10021 of 2011 have no objection if the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the petition.
Having regard to the said request, present petition is disposed of as withdrawn, however, with a clarification that the competent authority will take necessary decision and action in accordance with law and applicable rules and policy and more particularly, the decision dated 28.03.2011, passed by Hon''ble Division Bench in Special Civil Application No.11290of 2010 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 10 weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order. The concerned authority shall, as mentioned above, keep in focus the observations by the Division Bench in the order dated 28.03.2011 in Special Civil Application No.11290 of 2010 and shall also keep in focus the fact that the period of permission said to have been granted earlier has, even otherwise, come to an end. With the aforesaid clarification, the petition is permitted to be withdrawn and stands disposed of as withdrawn.