It is settled principle of law that in the field of expertise, the Court cannot substitute its own opinion in order to discard any experts suggestion, on which, the Government has acted upon, in particular in absence of counter expertise. In this context, we have seen the order dated 24.7.2008, which is the ultimate decision of the Government. In paragraph-5 thereof, we have noticed the Government has acted on the basis of the report of the Chief Engineer, North Coast, Visakhapatnam. The relevant portion thereof is set out hereunder. Government have examined the matter carefully, keeping in view of the report of Chief Engineer, North Coast, Visakhapatnam. It is decided to accept the proposal of the Chief Engineer, North Coast, Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, administrative approval for an estimate of Rs.70.47 crores (Rupees Seventy Crores and Forty Seven Lakhs Only) is accorded to take up the work relating to excavation of Gajapathipalem Branch Canal taking off from KM 97.7 of Thotapalli Right Main Canal to provide irrigation facilities to additional area of 15,000 acres beyond Gadigedda by allowing canal water to cross Gadigedda by means of an aqua duct. Therefore, it is clear from the aforesaid Government Order that it has not passed the order without any material. The report of the Chief Engineer, North Coast, Visakhapatnam has been considered and thereafter decision has been taken. It is not suggested that Chief Engineer has no competence. The Court cannot interfere with a decision taken by the Government rationally, so to say, with the acceptable materials. This project, no doubt, involves lot of civil engineering and it is within the realm of technical expertise. The report of the Chief Engineer has not been brought to our notice nor it has been alleged that the said report is un- acceptable in any sense. In other words, the report of the Chief Engineer has not been challenged here on the ground of illegality or irrationality. In the absence of these allegations, we are unable to entertain the grievance of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.

THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR              

Writ Petition No.3165 of 2009

16-02-2015

Gadde Babu Rao,Ex. M.L.A.,Cheepurupally Village and Mandal,Vizianagaram  
District.   Petitioner

The State of Andhra Pradesh,Represented by its Principal Secretary,Irrigation &
CAD (Maj. Irri(i) Department),Hyderabad and others..Respondents

For the petitioner: Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao

For Respondents 1 to 4:Sri B. Mayur Reddy, Additional A.G.
                                        for G.P. for Irrigation
For Respondent No.5:  Sri B. Narayan Reddy

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?CITATIONS:

THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA            
 AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

Writ Petition No.3165 of 2009

DATED:16.02.2015  

THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA            
 AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

Writ Petition No.3165 of 2009

Order: (per the Honble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

      This Public Interest Litigation has been filed questioning the
Government Orders, G.O. Ms. No. 155, Irrigation & CAD
(PW.MAJ.IRRI.I) Department, dated 24.7.2008 and G.O. Ms.No. 44,
Irrigation & CAD (Maj.IRR.I) Department, dated 9.3.2006, as being
illegal and arbitrary.
      In support of the aforesaid prayer, in the body of the writ
petition, ignoring the other unnecessary details, we note that the
grievance of the petitioner is that the project was intended for
providing irrigation facilities for 1,84,000 acres and the capacity of
the tank is 2.50 T.M.C. and F.R.L. is at plus 105 Meters.  It is alleged
that without changing the project design, the 4th respondent herein,
seems to have submitted proposals for sanction of additional
distributory system required to irrigate 14,400 acres located in
Bobbili Constituency.
      We have seen the stand of the Government in the counter
affidavit.
      It is stated in paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit that the
excavation work of Gajapathinagaram Branch Canal is being taken
up to provide irrigation and drinking water facilities to upland areas
and drought prone mandals of Cheepurupalli, Garividi, Gurla and
Merakamudidam of Cheepurupalli Constituency and Dattirajeru and
Gajapathinagaram Mandals of Gajapathinagaram Constituency of  
Vizianagaram District.  The new Ayacut is proposed by utilizing the
surplus water partly and balance dependable water of total
allocation of 16 TMC to Andhra Pradesh.  The capacity of the
Barrage has not been changed and the R&R aspect of the scheme  
was also not affected.  As such, the R&R plan approval issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, holds good.  While
planning Irrigation Scheme, first preference will be given to drinking
water and next preference will be given to provide irrigation facilities
to agricultural lands. The next priority is industrial requirement.
      In paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit, it is stated amongst
others as follows:
      Before issuing G.O. Ms. No.155, dated 24.7.2008, all
the parameters influencing the functioning of Right Main Canal
has been examined and after satisfying with the capacity of
canal and availability of water, the said orders were issued by
the Government.

      No affidavit in reply has been filed controverting the aforesaid
averments and statements of the counter affidavit.
      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who
reiterated the statements made in the writ petition on factual
aspect.
      Therefore the area of the dispute which requires consideration
of this is whether the two Government Orders challenged before us
require a judicial scrutiny or not ?
      It is settled principle of law that in the field of expertise, the
Court cannot substitute its own opinion in order to discard any
experts suggestion, on which, the Government has acted upon, in
particular in absence of counter expertise.  In this context, we have
seen the order dated 24.7.2008, which is the ultimate decision of
the Government.  In paragraph-5 thereof, we have noticed the
Government has acted on the basis of the report of the Chief
Engineer, North Coast, Visakhapatnam. The relevant portion thereof
is set out hereunder.
       Government have examined the matter carefully, keeping
in view of the report of Chief Engineer, North Coast,
Visakhapatnam. It is decided to accept the proposal of the Chief
Engineer, North Coast, Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, administrative
approval for an estimate of Rs.70.47 crores (Rupees Seventy Crores
and Forty Seven Lakhs Only) is accorded to take up the work
relating to excavation of Gajapathipalem Branch Canal taking off
from KM 97.7 of Thotapalli Right Main Canal to provide irrigation
facilities to additional area of 15,000 acres beyond Gadigedda by
allowing canal water to cross Gadigedda by means of an aqua
duct.

      Therefore, it is clear from the aforesaid Government Order
that it has not passed the order without any material. The report of
the Chief Engineer, North Coast, Visakhapatnam has been
considered and thereafter decision has been taken. It is not
suggested that Chief Engineer has no competence. The Court cannot
interfere with a decision taken by the Government rationally, so to
say, with the acceptable materials. This project, no doubt, involves
lot of civil engineering and it is within the realm of technical
expertise. The report of the Chief Engineer has not been brought to
our notice nor it has been alleged that the said report is un-
acceptable in any sense.
      In other words, the report of the Chief Engineer has not been
challenged here on the ground of illegality or irrationality. In the
absence of these allegations, we are unable to entertain the
grievance of the petitioner.
      Under the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of any
merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
      Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.

__________________  
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ  
________________  
SANJAY KUMAR, J        
16th February, 2015

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.