BHAJAN SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhajan Singh and others have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality of the order of the Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No. 1, dated 20th November, 1968 (copy Annexure 'B' to the petition).

(2.) The main ground urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the impugned order is not a speaking order and as such is liable to be set aside on that short ground. Reliance in support of this contention is placed on the Supreme Court decision in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and others, 1966 AIR(SC) 671 and Bhagat Raja v. Union of India and others, 1967 AIR(SC) 1606 In my view, there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel. The decision of the Superintending Canal Officer after stating contentions of the then appellant, is in the following terms :-

(3.) From the reading of the impugned order, no manner of doubt is left in my mind that it does not stand the test as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned two authorities and is a scrappy and laconic order. The learned officer, it seems, has not applied his mind to the controversy and has passed a telegraphic order. It does not give any reasons as to why he arrived at a different view from the one arrived at by the Divisional Canal Officer.