1994 PLP 1332 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 24th January, 1994. In this Constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents for implementation of order dated 30‑11‑1992. 2: The facts forming the background of this case shortly stated are that on the application of the petitioner the Chief Minister of Punjab on 14‑7‑1992 sanctioned the additional water supply to his 15 acres garden at outlet R.D.9400/T.R Tauri Minor of Lower Bari Doab Canal System subject to precedent. A direction was given to S.E. Lower Bari to take further necessary actiotl accordingly.

3. An Advisory Committee was constituted which consisted of three members of which two were the S.Es. and the third was the Chief Engineer himself. A meeting was held by the said Committee on 30‑11‑1992 in which it was decided that in view of situation of the garden land of the petitioner on the tail of IAL Distributory, therefore, sanction of additional water for 15 acres garden was likely to cause hardships to other land‑owners and the channel being a lift channel, to accord approval for additional water for 5 Acres garden. This approval was not questioned by any person for a long time. However, on 23‑5‑1993, the Chief Minister of Punjab on the representation of the applications made by certain persons from the Chak passed an order for cancellation/withdrawal of earlier letter through which approval of additional water for 15 acres garden of the petitioner had been recommended/provided. In view of this decision conveyed to the authorities the authorities declined to give additional water for 5 acres garden already approved on 30‑11‑1992.

4. In the comments submitted by the respondents it was stated that in fact the Advisory Committee had recommended the sanction of additional water and the same was not an approval in accordance with the law and the rules framed under the Canal and Drainage Act. The departmental representative who appeared today for the respondent stated that under rule 9 of the garden rules Superintending Engineer was competent authority to sanction additional water. He also stated that since 1986 the system of sanction of additional water in Lower Bari Doab Canal System has been abolished:

5. For the later contention when asked he was not in a position to refer to any rule or instructions for abolition of system of sanctioning additional water. He stated that it was as a matter of policy decided not to sanction additional water and the rule on the subject are still intact which provide that additional water in fit cases can be sanctioned, therefore, the plea as regards abolition of the said system cannot be entertained particularly when such a plea was not raised in the comments.

6. As observed above, The S.E. was one of the members of the Committee dad the decision taken by the Committee was not merely a recommendation as asserted but it was an approval given for additional water for five acres garden of the petitioner. S.E who according to the departmental representative was competent authority to give such a sanction being member of the said Committee as also the Chief Engineer who was the Head of the Department therefore the said sanction in fact had been given by a competent authority.

7. After having been granted additional water for 5 acres garden, the same could not have been withdrawn as a right had been created in favour of the petitioner. The subsequent direction of the Chief Minister issued on the application of other residents of the Chak was issued without lawful authority and without hearing the petitioner whose rights were adversely effected? therefore the petitioner could not be deprived of his rights to get order dated 30‑i1‑1992 implemented.

8. The writ petition is accepted. The respondents are hereby directed to implement the order dated 30‑11‑1992 through which the petitioner had been given sanction for additional water for 5 acres, garden. The parties are left to bear their own costs. AA./M‑1450/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.