1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT General Public Village Khawarao Vs. Civil Judge (JD), Dausa & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9166/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order :- 16th July, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Nawal Singh Sikarwar, for the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Dausa, whereby the learned Civil Judge has declined to grant an interim relief to the petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that in order to improve irrigation in Dausa, the District Collector, Dausa had sanctioned Rs.32.71 Lakh for construction of ENNICUT at Sevyawalal Nala Gram Panchayat Khawaroji, District Dausa. Consequently, the Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Sub- Division, Dausa wrote a letter dated 22.04.2010 for selection of the site where the ENNICUT was to be constructed. However, subsequently a dispute 2 arose as to the exact place where the said ENNICUT should be constructed. Therefore, the Gram Pranchayat passed a resolution in its meetings dated 24.04.2010 and 05.05.2010 wherein it opined that the ENNICUT should be constructed at the place earlier surveyed by the Irrigation Department and for which a TAKMINA was prepared. Since the villagers were eager that the ENNICUT should be constructed at the place approved by the Gram Panchayat, they wrote a letter to the Collector. However, according to the petitioners, the respondent Nos.3 & 4, the Officers of the Irrigation Department, have decided to construct the ENNICUT at a different place in order to benefit certain private individuals. Therefore, the petitioners filed a civil suit for permanent injunction with an application for temporary injunction. After hearing both the parties vide order dated 29.05.2010, the learned Civil Judge declined to grant an interim relief to the petitioners. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that since the Gram Panchayat had approved of a particular site, the Irrigation Department was duty bound to construct the ENNICUT 3 at that very site. It could not change the site so as to give benefit to certain private individuals. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to place any law or case law in order to demonstrate that the Irrigation Department is bound by the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat. Moreover, he has not been able to marshall out any evidence to prima facie show that the respondent Nos.3 & 4 are acting for the benefit of certain private individuals. Therefore, only vague allegations have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners which are unacceptable. Furthermore, a bare perusal of the order dated 29.05.2010 clearly reveals that not only has the project for construction of ENNICUT been approved, but even the budget has been sanctioned. Therefore, it is too late in the day for the petitioners to plead that they have a strong primia facie case in their favour. Lastly, it is not for the Civil Court to decide the exact place where an ENNICUT should be constructed. The selection of the site has to be left to the 4 discretion of the Irrigation Department. Afterall, in catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that certain “play at the joints” has to be given to the Executive and the administration cannot be run by the courts. Since the issue with regard to the construction of ENNICUT can be decided better by experts dealing with irrigation projects, it is not for the court to interfere with the decision. It is, indeed, a settled principle of administrative law that only the process of decision can be looked into, but the decision itself cannot be substituted by the court even if the court could come with a better option. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge was certainly justified in not granting the interim relief to the petitioners. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. Consequently, the stay petition is also dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-