1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.4042/2007 Puran Pal singh & Anr. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 9.7.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr. JS Bhaleria, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Superintending Engineer dated 16th June, 2007 on the assumption that by this order either the level of the water outlets will be changed to lift the water flow or any action may be taken,which may be detrimental to the petitioner's interest in getting the water, which petitioner is getting. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on earlier occasion appropriate orders were passed for correcting the water outlets and those orders have already been implemented. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in bunch of writ petitions while deciding stay petition alongwith S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6625/2005 (Avtar Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors) vide order dated 21.2.2007) this Court observed that if there is Rabi crop standing on the filed unharvested then in those cases, the cultivator shall be continued to be provided the water as was 2 being provided and ordered that respondents shall not in any manner take any such step, which may affect, or reduce, the water supply even in micro level, below the one originally sanctioned, to each of the petitioners. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is clear from the order dated 16th June,2006 itself that the Superintending Engineer passed the order only for correction in the outlets so that the cultivators may get the appropriate water supply according to their entitlement only. This order is passed only for maintenance of the water supply. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. So far as order dated 21st March, 2007, which was passed in above writ petition as interim order was only interim measure. In this case, when watter supply is being maintained by the Irrigation Department then there arises no question of interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the action of the respondents, which they are taking in accordance with law. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (Prakash Tatia), J. c.p.goyal/-