SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Divisional Canal Officer Faridkot, and the appellate order dated 06.07.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur, petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders. The facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition, which are hardly in dispute are that, on the application moved by the private respondent no.5 for shifting of his land from one outlet to another, notice was issued to the petitioners for 15.02.2011. Pursuant to the service of notice having been effected, petitioners appeared on the date fixed i.e. 15.02.2011 and moved an application requesting for a date, opposing the inclusion of the area of respondent no.5, in the outlet of the petitioners. However, the request of the petitioners for adjourning the case was not accepted and the case was decided on 15.02.2011 itself, as it is clear from Annexure P-1. Dissatisfied, petitioners filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer, which also came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 06.07.2011 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, a joint reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was filed, whereas a separate written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 5.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners raised only one argument that the basic rule of natural justice has been violated in the present case. He submits that reasonable opportunity of being heard was denied to the petitioners without disclosing any reason in the impugned order dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure P-1). He next contended that since this basic defect in the impugned order (Annexure P-1), has not been appreciated even while passing impugned appellate order, both the orders were liable to be set aside by allowing the writ petition.