1989 PLP 785 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 13th April, 1983 whereby Intra Court Appeal of the petitioners was dismissed. The background is that the Superintending Engineer Haveli Circle respondent sanctioned extra supply of water for the gardens of respondents 2 to 4 on their application. The petitioners feeling aggrieved filed a civil suit against his order and along with it also applied for a temporary injunction which application was dismissed by the Civil Judge. Thereupon an appeal was filed by the petitioners, against the dismissal order and the District fudge allowed the prayer of stay observing that if the Canal authorities were to sanction extra water for the gardens afresh, they could do so under the Canal and Drainage Act after observing the formalities such as notice to all the share‑holders etc. Thereafter on 11th January, 1983 the Superintending Engineer respondent reheard the matter by summoning the share‑holders and after overruling their objections as to the supply of extra water decided the matter in favour of the aforesaid respondents. This order was subsequently challenged by the petitioners by way of writ petition which was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 6th April, 1983. Thereafter their Intra Court Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench as stated above. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that there was no provision under the Rules where extra supply of water could be sanctioned as rule 9 of the Canal and Drainage Rules had already been repealed. It was also contended that in any case when water was to be supplied under section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act an order to that effect could only be passed by the Divisional Canal Officer after hearing all the share‑holders. We find no force in these arguments. It is evident from the order of the learned Single Judge that sanction of extra supply of water for gardens etc. could be made under rule 9 which was stated to be amended on 26th March, 1976. The Superintending Engineer respondent therefore could pass such an order. Learned counsel could A not assist us about the amendment of the aforesaid rule. Next that in this case the Superintending Engineer respondent had sanctioned the extra supply after notice to the share‑holders whom he heard but overruled their objections. Since this is the position we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. A.A./S‑236/S Petition dismissed.