1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8656/2009. Hari Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 11th September 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Vijay Agarwal, for the petitioner. .... BY THE COURT: This writ petition, filed way back on 17.08.2005, remained lying on the defects side; and the defects were removed only after passing of the peremptory order dated 04.03.2009. The petition has, thus, come up for admission after four years. The counsel for the petitioner submits that there had been subsequent events after filing of the petition and the matter may be adjourned so as to enable the petitioner to bring the subsequent events on record. There appears absolutely no justification that the petitioner has kept this writ petition pending on the defects side for over four years and when the matter is placed for admission, an adjournment is sought for bringing on record the so-called subsequent events. Prayer for adjournment is declined. It has been submitted in this writ petition that the petitioner was granted permission for the facility to pour the 2 brackish water of the tube-well in the canal and to be allowed equal water of canal in exchange and for the purpose of irrigation of his agriculture land. However, an order was passed for stoppage of such facilities on 17.06.2000; and thereafter, demand was raised against the petitioner by the Department that came to be challenged and ultimately this Court allowed the writ petition on 21.05.2003 quashing the demand and directing the Executive Engineer to decide the matter afresh. An order dated 21.06.2004 (Annex.10) as passed by the Executive Engineer has been placed on record whereby the Executive Engineer ordered that stoppage of supply of water due to earlier demand was not proper as the same had been quashed by the High Court; and further directions were made for recalculating the amount recoverable. It is submitted that even the recalculation as made has since been quashed by the SDO concerned. It is, however, submitted that the directions for supply of water and regarding abolition of lock system have not been complied with. The said order by the Executive Engineer was passed way back on 21.06.2004 and therein too, the Executive Engineer observed, while directing that the lock system be abolished and temporarily the water supply be allowed, that if 3 for any reason, any policy decision would be taken by the Government or higher officials and any new orders would be passed, water supply could be modified or stopped. This Court finds no reason or justification that any further directions be made in relation to the position that has continued for over five years since after passing of the said order by the Executive Engineer on 21.06.2004. After this much of dictation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the petition so as to move a proper representation. Having regard to the circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw; and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The counsel submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to make representation. So far taking up of any proceedings by the petitioner are concerned, this Court has not passed any order either way and it is for the petitioner to consider his position and stand; and to take resort to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK