SHAM SUNDER Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed an application for shifting his source of irrigation to outlet No. 13400-L. This application was dismissed by the Divisional Canal Officer vide order dated January 29, 1997. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. The petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Superintending Canal Officer vide order dated October 26, 1997. A copy of this order has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. Aggrieved by the two orders, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. C.M. Munjal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) MR . Munjal states that the petitioner had engaged a counsel in this Court to file the present writ petition. When was the counsel engaged ? Nothing has been mentioned. It has been further averred that the brief containing the documents was misplaced. What steps did the petitioner take thereafter ? There is no answer. Still further, the contention does not appear to be correct. The certified copy of the order dated October 26, 1997 produced by the petitioner shows that he had applied for a copy on January 16, 1998 and it was supplied to him on January 20, 1998. If the brief had been actually misplaced then how has the petitioner produced the copy which he had obtained in the year 1998 ? It has been averred that the brief was found tagged with another file. Which file ? When ? The petitioner has given no details.