IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 2896 of 2010 Decided on: 1st September, 2010 Fauza Ram Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Sood, Additional Advocate General __________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- (i) “That a writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to dissolve present Kuhal Nirman Committee Pakki Dangi Gram Pohara (Prei), P.O. Bajred, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh which is lacking representation of petitioner and others water users/farmers of the villages Prei, Pohara, Bajred and against policy Annexure P-3. (ii) That respondents No. 1 to 4 may very kindly be directed to form Krishak Vikas Sangh as per Annexure P-3 by giving adequate representation to the water users/farmers alongwith categories i.e. women, SC/ST etc. alongwith petitioner and further directed to execute construction of work of water channel Pakki Dangi Kuhl as per the policy.” .2. An affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 4, Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, wherein it is stated that there are two groups in the locality and in view of such groupism, it was found difficult by the Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officer and others to form the KVS. According to the petitioner in the meeting only around 100 farmers participated, whereas according to the Parivar Register, there are around 700 farmers and in case prior notice had been issued a Management Committee could have been found. Therefore, it is prayed that direction be issued to the Deputy Commissioner to form the Committee. It is submitted that in any case the committee, headed by the 5th respondent is incompetent since the very formation of the committee was even prior to sanction of the project. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General (There is no appearance for the 5th respondent despite service of notice). Having heard the arguments and on going through the records, we are of the view that the 5th respondent committee cannot, in any way, be permitted to carry out the work. It is not one formed in accordance with the guidelines. As to whether people committee/KVS can be entrusted with work, in case there is time available for execution of the work, the 3rd respondent, Deputy Commissioner, may make an attempt within two months from today. If that attempt also fails, the work, shall be carried out by the departmental agency, as stated in the affidavit. It is also made clear that in case there is no such time available for execution of the work, it will be open to respondents No. 1 to 4 to carry out work immediately through departmental agencies. Needless to say that in that event the departmental agency will cary out the work strictly as per specifications. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), September 1, 2010(K) Judge