SBCWP NO.2371/2006 –BOGA SINGH V/S STATE OF RAJSHTAN AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.28.4.2008 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2371/2006 Boga Singh . versus The State of Rajasthan and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Trilok Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.H.R.Chawla } Mr.Arjun Singh }, for respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT : 28th April, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned order Annex.4 dated 9.10./2005 and appellate order Annex.5 dated 12.4.2006 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Sri Ganganagar. SBCWP NO.2371/2006 –BOGA SINGH V/S STATE OF RAJSHTAN AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.28.4.2008 2/4 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the private respondent No.4 had initially applied for grant of additional Naka at point No.10 in Murabba No.7 in the map given in Annex.1 whose application was rejected by the Assistant Engineer and upheld by the Appellate Authority by Annex.3 order dtd.30.7.2005. Still the respondents changed the said additional Naka to point No.12 in the said map and again applied for grant of additional Naka which was allowed by the Assistant Engineer by Annex.4 order dated 19.10.2005. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the same was rejected by the concerned Superintending Engineer by the impugned order Annex.5 dated 12.4.2006. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the application of the respondent No.4 was rejected on the ground that the grant of additional Naka was not technically feasible, the Authorities below could not have given sanction at changed point No.12 to the same applicant and that has caused prejudice to the water supply of the petitioner from the same water course. SBCWP NO.2371/2006 –BOGA SINGH V/S STATE OF RAJSHTAN AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.28.4.2008 3/4 5. The learned counsels for the respondents opposes this writ petition and submits that the Appellate Authority after hearing the petitioner in the said appeal filed by the petitioner has clearly observed that the only objection of the present petitioner before the said Appellate Authority was that additional “Naka” which has been sanctioned in favour of the respondent No.4 was merely to avoid his work of “Khal Khudai and Safai” (cleaning), otherwise the present petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing. They further submitted that if additional Naka was changed from point No.10 to point no.12 in the said water course, the rejection of earlier application by the authority of the Irrigation Department could not be estoppel in the way of the respondent No.4 in applying again for grant of additional Naka at point No.12. 6. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that these matters are within the sole domain of the respondent – authorities who are technically more equipped and informed about sanction of additional Naka in the said water course. Unless the action of the authority is shown to be arbitrary and in breach of SBCWP NO.2371/2006 –BOGA SINGH V/S STATE OF RAJSHTAN AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD.28.4.2008 4/4 principles of natural justice, this Court is not expected to interfere in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in these types of matters. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any legal provision under which grant of such additional Naka is prohibited nor he has been able to establish any prejudice caused to the petitioner by sanction of such Additional Naka in favour of the respondent No.4. 8. Therefore, this writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.53 Ss/-