O w.P. No.€é Lia or 2002 (LWMJ BHUPENDRA SHARMA SON OF LATE DURGA PRASAD SHARMA AGED 44 YEARS, CONVEYOR, KISHAN SANGHARSH ‘AND SAMITEE, PRESIDENT OF WATER USER’S ASSOCIATION TEKAR! RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TEKARI, DISTRICT RAIPUR‘ PETITIONER VERSUS l/‘STATE OF C ATTISGARH THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, DAU KALYAN SINGH BHAWAN, RAIPUR. 2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE SECRETARY Q w MINISTRY OF IRRIGATIoN, VALLABrI wag . ‘ BHAWAN, BHOPAL. AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND/OR ORDER(S), AND/OR DIRECTION(S§ IN THE NATURE OF WRITS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR RESPONDENTS / / HH (V? Hag cagm OF Jumrgg Mm cgHAmsaARH AT gal sagR WR!T §TlTgON NO. 644 OF gQQ BhupendraSharma Versus State of Chhattisgam 5 anather 0rd r‘for con i rati x Sd/— cuéF‘J§s?loé m 414.2005. M Hon’ble ShriV.K.Shriv suv . YL Post for __2‘”__l April. 2005 Sd/; > 7 ciHIEF J6§1§CE M $472005. i : v > He RT or Ju Tu HA seARHA'r! PUR‘. mm a H CORAM : _ Hon’bieShriAK. Patnaik,C.J. & Hon’bie Shri V.K. Shriva3hva, J WQ¢££££3992 Bhupendra Sharma Versus State of Chhattisgarh & another Present : Mr. B.P. shama, Ieamed counsei for the petimyner; Mr. V.V.S. Murthy. teamed Dy. Advocab‘eeneral’with Mr. S.K. Mataiya, OmGer-in-Charge for State of Chhattisgarh} Respondent No.1 \ Mr. Shaitendra Shukta, leamed counset tor the $tate of Madhya Fradesh l Respondent No.2 r in D g3 (Passed on 3f Apm, zoos) The foltowing arder of the Court was passed by A.K. Pgmaik. CJ.: The peu'tioner is .an agriculturist and ls the President of Water Users' Association constituted under the Madhya Pradesh sinchai Prabandhan Main Krishko 'Ki Bhagidari Adhiniyam, 1999. He is also the Convener of Kishan Sangharsh Samiti. He has tiled this pubiic interest litigation to protect the interest of the farmets in the State of Chhattisgarh. By Notification No.CR—9v92 MED-314i. dated 30'” Aprii, 1993 issued under Sub-secton (2) of Section 37 of the Madhya Ptadesh irrigation Act, 1931 read with Rule 37 of the Madhya Pradesh irrigation Ruias. 1974‘. the State Government of Madhya Pradesh med the rates for suppiy of water from irrigation works in Madhya Pradeeh for agriculture purposes wet. 1” October, 1992 at the rates herein given heiow: Pursuant to the said notification, farmers in the State of Madhya Pradesh were being suppiied water for Kahrif and Rabi crops at the rates as nxed in the said notincation dated so“ Aprii, 1993. But thereafter by a Notincatio‘n No.6R-9-92-MA-31-953 dated 08.08.1999 issued under Sub- section (2) of Section 37 of Madhya Pradesh irrigation Act, 1931 read with Rule 36 of Madhya Pradesh irrigation Rules 1974, the water rates of water supply from irrigation works in Madhya Pradesh were increased to Ram/- per acre per crop. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the said notiticahon dated 08.06.1999 and for restraining the rospondent/ state Authorities and their agente servants and empioyees from recovering the irrigation Ex from the fanners of the State of Chhattisgarh at the increased rate as hxed in the aforesaid impugned notitication dated 08.06.1999. 2. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submiuad that the Madhya Pradesh irrigation Act. 1931 and the Madhya Pradoeh irrigation Rules, 1974 are not appiicabie to the new State of'Chhattisgarh formed by the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, inasmuch as the said Act and the Rules have not been adapted by the Shte Government under Section 79 of the Madhya Pra lash Reorganizadon Act. 2000. He argued that since'the Madhya Pradesh irrigation Act, 1931 and the Madhya Pradesh irrigation Rules. 1974 have not been adapted and made applicable to the state of Chhattisgarh by me State Govemment of Chhattisgarh under Section 79 of the Madhya Pradeeh Re- organization Act, 2000, the impugnednotificadon dated 08.06.1999 issued under Section 37 of the Medhya Pradesh irrigation Act; 1901 read‘with the Madhya Pradesh irrigation Rules, 1974 is not applicable b the stab of Chhattisgarh after the State of Chhattisgarh was formed under the“ Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. 8!. Name of Crops Watef rates in No. Rupees per acre par crop 1. Rice On demand 24.00 On loni‘erm 22.00 2. Wheat 1. Maximum three wheting including palewa 25.00 '. In repiy to the aforesaid submtsslon, Mr W6 My, Dy. Advocate Genetal for the State of chhamsgaih praduead a copy of the notification dated 31 1O 2002 of the Govemment of Chhatttsgarh Wamr Resources Department to show that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 79 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act 200G, the State Government has made an order adapting and extending the aforesaid Act and the Rules to the State of Chhattisgarh and‘the said Act and the Rules after such adaptation are renamed as the Chhattiegarh Irrigation Act, 1931 dn‘d‘the Chhauisgarh irrigation Rules, ’1‘974. Mr. 'Murthy submitted’that the said notification dated 31102002 also makes it clear that anything done or any action taken in exercise ofi’the powers conferred by Madhya Pradeeh irrigation Act, 1931a and Madhya Pradesh irrigation Rules. 1974 shall continue to be force in the State of Chhattisgarh. 4. The notihcation dated 31.10.2002 issued'by the State Government“ of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Department. is extracted herein below: “GOVERNMENT OF CHHATTISGARH WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA DAU KALYAN SINGH BHAWAN RAIPUR No.36?3/4270NVRD/2002 Raipurldabdi’?! 310.2002 ‘ t MonFicAnoN ‘ in exercise of the powers conferred by Section '79 of the Madhya Pradesh Re-Qrganization Act, 2000 (No.28 of 200$, the Sate Governmenthereby makes the-foliowing‘orders namely: - I ORDER 1. (i) This order may be caiied the Adaptation of Law's 0rder > 2002 (ii) ' it shall come into force in the whole State of Chhattisgarh on the first day of November, 2000 2. The Laws as amended from~timetotime specined in theScheduie' s to this order whichwere inuforce in the-.V»Stateof»MadhyawPradesh. immediateiy before the formation of theistate of Ghhatfsgarh, are hereby extended to and “shall be in force in the State ' of Chhattisgarh until repealed or amended, or subject to. the 3 x +14 modmcwon that in ail the Iaws for the wards “Madhya Pradash" whatever ihey occur the word “Chhattisgarh” shail be subwtubd. 3. Anything done or any action hken (including any appointment. notification, notice, order. form. iaguiaiion, certiiicaia of licence) in exercise of the powers conferred by or undar the laws speeifiedin the schedule shall continue to .be in, force in the State of Chhatiisgarh. 5. it will be clear from the aforesaid notification dated 31 .102602 that the State Govemment has in exercise of powers under Section 79 of the Medhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 adapted and extended the Madhya Pradesh irrigation Act 1931 and the Madhye Pradesh irrigation Rules 1974 and made the same applicable to the state of Chhatdsgarh with'the change that the said Act and the Rules wilt be eailed the Chhattisgarh irrigation Act 1931 and the Chhattisgarh irrigation Rules 1974. Clause 3 of the Adaptation of Law’s Order 2002 made by the notification dated 31.10.2002 of the Govemment of Chinttisgarh in the Water Resources Department provides that anything done or any action taken in exercise of the powers conferred by the Madhyo Pradesh irrigation Act 1931 and the Mauhya‘Pradesh irrigation Ruies 1974 shaii continue to be in force in the State of Chhattisgarh. in view of the aforesaid notification dated‘31‘.10.2002 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Watery Resources Department under Section 79 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act 2000, the contention of‘Mr. Shanna, learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification dabd 08.06.1999 §§§§DJJLE S.No. NAME OF THE LAWS 01. Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Act 1931 a. Madhya Pradesh irrigation Rules 1974 02, i Madhya Pradesh irrigation Department (Non Gazehd) Service Recruitment rules 1989 O3. Madhya Pmdesh Irrigation Engineering service (Gazetted) Recruitment ruiee 1968. i O4. Madhya Pradeeh Sinchai Prabhandhan Main Krishko Ki Bhagidari Adhiniyam 1999. By order and in thename of the Government of Chhaw‘sgarh, sal- 7(C.K. KHAITAN) Secretary Water Resources Dept,“ -;¢ issued under the Madhya Pradesh irrigation M1931 roadwith the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Rules 1914 is not applicaMe m {he Sims of Chhattisgarh after formation of new State of Chhamsgam is thus misconceived and has no merit. 6. Mr. B.P. shama, learned ecunsel for tha'petitioner nextvsubmitted ' w that Sub-section '(1) of Section 37 of the Madhya Pradesh irrigau'on Act 1931 provides that watar may be supplied froma canal under clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) thereof for the purposes indicated therein and‘sub- section (2) of Section 37 of the said Act provides that charges for me supply of water under clauses (a), (b), (c) or (e) of Sub-section (1) of Secdon 37 shall be paid at such rates as may be iixed by the 3m Government in accordance with the Rules made under his Act. He submitted that thus the Legislature has delegated me power to nx the charges for supply of water under Section 37 of the said Act to he state Govemment in accordance with the Rules. He pointed out that accordingly Rule 36 of the Madhya Pradesh irrigation Rules 1974 provides the manner in which the rates for supply of water under clauses (a). (b) & (c) of Sub-section (1) of section 37 of die said Act shall be fixed by the State Government. He submitted mat Rule 36 of the Madhya Pradesh irrigation Rules 1974 provides that proposals for iixation of rates for the supply of water under clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Subsection (1) of Section 37 shall be considered by the Standing Committee for irrigation and thereafter, the said proposals and the opinion of the 8unding dommittee shall be placed on the tabie of the Madhya Pradesh state Legislative Assembly. The said Rule 36 further provides that the State Government shall give the Assembly an opportunity of discussing diam and shall mire into consideration any resolution oonceming them that may be passed by the Legislative Assembly before fixing the rate to be charged. He vehementiy argued that this procedure was by-passed before the impugned notification dated 08.06.1999 was issued‘hxingithe new Mes for supply of water from the irrigation‘works for the agricuimre purposes and the impugned nodfication ms issued by the state Government under the proviso to Section 36 of the Rules, which provides that if the State Govemment considers any case to be so utgent as to necessimte the immediate issue of orders, it could take action at once, but ali such orders -éZ‘ issued under the proviso will have to be piaced within sh: mamhs ef their issue, before the standing Committee and thereaiter. Iaid on the able of the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Sharma referred to we provisions of Section 24-A of Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Ael 1957 which provides that where. in any Madhya Predesh Act, it is directed that‘a rule shell be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly,'then such rule shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made. before me Legislative Assembly for a total period of thirty days and if, before the expiry of thirty days, the Legislative Assembly adopts a resoludon that such a rule should not be made or that any modihcation be made therein, the ruie shall thereatter be of no effect or have effect only in the modified form, as the case may be. He cited the observation of the Supreme Gourt in the case of The Quarry Owners’ Association vs. The State ol' Bitter &‘Ore., reported in AIR 2000 sc 2870 to the effect that when any statute requires mere iaying of any notification or Rule before the Legislature before its execution, State Government comes under he scrutiny of the eonoerned Legislature and each member of the house, subject to its procedure. gets right to discuss the same and they may put quesdons to‘the concerned Ministry. Mr Shanna vehemently argued that aner the state o! Chhattisgarh was formed w.e.f. 01.11.2000, the impugned nodticadon dated 08.06.1999 increasing the rates for supply of water from irrigation works for the agriculture purposes, though attack a large number of farmers in the State of Chhattisgarh, has never been placed before the Legislature of Chhattisgarh and for this reason, the impugned notihcatlon should be held to be void and should be quashed by this Court. 7. Mr V.V.S. Murthy, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh relying on the chronological events as indicated in Para 10 of the retum med on behalf of the respondent I Shte submitted that the impugned notihcation dated 08.06.1999 iixing the new rates for supply of water from irrigation works for the agriculture purposes was pleoed before the irrigation Standing Committee on “02.11 .1999 and thereafter recommendation of the irrigation Standing Committee on the water rates as ‘nxed by the impugned nodncation was placed before the Madhya' Pradeeh Legislative Assembly on 26.11 .1999 and hence everythinghas been done and all actions have been mken as required by the'proviso to -gz Rule 36 of the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Rules 1974, much before the Chhattisgarh sme was formed under the Madhya Pradeah Re- , _ organization Act 2000 w.e.f. 01 .1 1 .2000. He also relied en the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Quarry Owners Association [Vs State of Bihar (supra) for the proposition that a statutory orovision which only requires an order to be placed before the Legislature as soon as may be. atter its made, and does not further provide that if such order is not * placed it will become invalid, is only a directory and/not a mandatory provision and non-compliance with such a provision will not make the order invalid. 8. Section 37 of the Madhya Pradesh irrigation Act 1931 is quoted herein below: “37. Purposes for which water may be supplied. ~ (1) Water may be suppiied from a canai - (a) under an irrigation agreement, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter Vi, V (b on demand, for the irrigation of specitied areas, to supplement a village tank, for industrial, urban or other purposes not connected with agriculture, xi, (e) for the irrigation of a compuisoriiy assessed area. Charges for the supply of water under clause (a). (b), (c) or (e) of sub-section (1) shall be paid at such rates as may be hxed by the State Government in accordance widr rules made under this Act.“ Sub-section (2) of Section 37 of Madhya Pradesh irrigadon Act 1931 provides that charges for supply of‘water under clauses (a). (b), (c) or (e) of sub-section (1) shall be paid at such rates as may be fixed by the State Govemment in accordance with rules made under this Act. 9. Rule 36 of the Madhya Pradesh irrigation Ruies 1974 providesithe manner in which the State Govemment is to fix such rates for the supply wwmu ) _ of water under ciauses (a). (b) or (e) of sub-section (1) cf swan 37 of the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Act 1931. The said Rule 38 is quahd herein below :— “36. section 37- Proposals for the Mon of rates fof the supply of water under clause (a), (b) or (c) of sub-semen (1) of Section 37 shafl be considered by the Standing Committee for irrigadon after which the said proposals and” the opinion of the Standing Committee shaii be pieced on' the mbie of me Madhya Pradesh Legisiative Assembly. The ‘ State Govemment shall give the Assembly an oppommity of discussing them and shall take into consideration any ’ resolution conceming them that may be passed by the Legislative Assembly before hxing the rate to be charged; Provided that if the State Government considers any case to be so urgent as to necessitate the immediate issue of orders. if any take action at once. All orders issued under this proviso, shall; within six months of their issue, be placed before the Standing Committee and thereafter laid on the table of the Legislative Assembiy.” it will be clear from the aforesaid Rule ‘36 that normatiy the proposal for the fixation of rates for the supply of water under clause (a), (b) or (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the said Act is to be considered by the Standing Committee for irrigation aher which the said proposeis and the opinion of the Standing Committee are to be placed on the table of the Legislative Assembly and the State Government is to give the Assembiy an opportunity of discussing them and take into consideration any resolution conceming them that may be passed by the Legislative Assembly before hxing the rate tok‘be charged. But under the prwiso, if the State Govemment considers any case to be so argent as to necessitate the immediate‘issue of orders, it may take action at once and i fix the rates for supply of water, but all such orders tixingthe rates for supply of water under the proviso are to be placed before the Standing i Commmaa for inigamn within six monttwuf-the' issue of ordels and thereafter laid an the able of the Legislative Assembly. 10. It appears from the list of chronological events given in para 10 of the return med by the sate of Chhattisgarh' thatthe impunod notmcahon'l order fixing the higher rates for supply of water was lssuedon 08.06.1999 and within six months thereafter the said notiiicatlon' was placed‘before the Standing Committee for irrigation on 02.11.1999 and'the matter was placed before the Legislative Assembly on 26-1 1-1999. Hence the requiremena of the proviso to Rule 36 of the Madhya Pradesh irrigation Rules 1974 had been duly complied and me proposals in the impugned notiticadon were placed before the Madhya' Pradesh Legisladve Assembly. it was only on 01.11.2000, about 11 months and 4 dew otter the impugned notification was placed before'the Legislah‘ve Assembly of me State of Madhya Pradesh that'the sate of Chhattisgarh was formed by the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act 2000. These fads would show that by the time the State of Chhath'sgarh came to be formed the impugned namcation dated oa-oe-ee had been duly issuedand pieced before the Standing Committee for the irrigation and the Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya ‘Pradesh in accordance with the proviso to Rule 36 or the Madhya Predesh Irrigation Rules '19'74. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the Legislative Assembly‘of the sate of Madhya Pradesh passed any resolution either modifying the watermtes or not approving the water rates as ’nxed in the impugned order/notitication dated 08-06-99. 11. Clause 3 of the Adaphdon Law's Order 2002 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Deparhnent under the Notification dated 31-10-2002 adapting the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Act 1931 and the Madhya Pradesh irrigation Rules 1974 expressly mtes that anything done or any action taken (including any appointment, notincation, notice, order, form, rule, reguladon, certificate of licence) in exercise of‘the ‘ powers conferred by or under the Madhya Pradesh irrigation Act 1931 or Madhya Pradesh irrigation Rules 1974 shalt condnue to be in force in me State of Chhattisgarh. The result is that the impugned order/ nodhcation dated 8-6-99 issued under the Subsectiona) of Section 37 of the Madhya Pradesh irrigation Aet,1931 read with Rule 36 of the Madhya' Pradesh -yé‘ Irrigation Rules 1974, continues to be in torce in'the State of‘Chhauisgarh 1 and the said crder/noh‘iicauon dated 08-06-99 cannat be hei¢ to he ultra vires or void mereiy because after ihe formation of the Shte of Chhattisgarh on 01-1 1-2000 the said order/notidcationdaie‘d W99 has not been placed before the Legislative Assembly of the State of ' Chhattisgarh. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no meritin this writ petition and we accordinglyrdismiss mesame; Butiwe 'make'itclear thatthedismiseat : of this writ’petitlon will not prevent the state Govemment or the sate Assembly of the State of Chhattisgarh to consider and lower the rates for supply of water from irrigation works for agriculture purposes, if they so deem tit and proper,in accordance with the provisions of Chhattisgarh Irrigation Act 1931 and Chhattisgarh irrigation Ruies 1974 1 subbu Sd/— Sd/- ‘ V.K. Shrivastava 12 i i GhiefJustiEe Judge at - 04-2005. n 04-2005.