MANPHOOL Vs. MANPHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioners Manphool son of Manchand and Hajari Ram son of Mansha Ram for sanctioning the prosecution of non-applicant Manphool son of Bhera Ram in respect of an offence under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. THIS application has been filed in the following circumstances -

(2.) THE applicants as well as non-applicant are residents of chak 9 K. M. in Tehsil Hanumangarh. THE agricultural fields in the aforesaid chak were originally being irrigated from the outlet at stone No. 211/404. By order dated 28-2-81. the Executive Engineer (Divisional Irrigation Officer R. C. P. Circle, C. A. D, Rajasthan Canal Project Hanumangarh Junction (here in after called 'the Executive Engineer) ordered that the outlet be shifted to stone No. 211/405. Against the aforesaid order of the Executive Engineer, the petitioner filed an appeal and the said appeal was allowed by the Superintending Engineer (Superintending Irrigation Officer), R. C. P. Circle, Rajasthan Canal Project, Hanumangarh Junction (hereinafter called the 'superintending Engineer' by the order dated 14-10-81. By the order aforesaid, the Superintending Engineer directed that there should be no change in the outlet. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Superintending Engineer, the non-petitioner along with Manphool son of Chanduram filed a writ petition (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1873/81) in this Court. In the said writ petition, the non-petitioner as well as said Manphool son of Chanduram prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to quash the order of the Superintending Engineer dated 1410-81. One of the grounds which was urged in the said writ petition to challenge the legality of the order of the Superintending Engineer was that it was passed without impleading them as party and without giving them an opportunity of hearing. THE petitioners were impleaded as respondents Nos. 5 and 4 in the said writ petition. THE writ petition was contested by the petitioners herein as well as by the other respondents to the writ petition, namely, the Superintending Engineer, the Executive Engineer and the State of Rajasthan-respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the said writ petition. In the reply that was filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the said writ petition, it was asserted that before passing the order dated 14-10-81 by the Superintending Engineer, a general notice had been circulated in the village inviting objections and in the said notice, the date that was fixed was 20-5-81 and that the non-petitioner had put his signatures on the said general notice and that Manphool son of Chanduram had affixed his thumb impression on it and that both of them had also appeared before the Superintending Engineer on 20-5-81. In the said reply, it was further stated that on 20-5 81, the matter was adjourned to 23-6-81 and on that date also, the non-petitioner was present before the Superintending Engineer and thus, the non-petitioner as well as Manphool son of Chanduram were both fully aware of the appeal which had been filed by the petitioners and that the non-petitioner as well as Manphool son of Chanduram had deliberately mentioned wrong facts in the writ petition. This court, by its order dated Sept. 21, 1982, dismissed the said writ petition of the non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chanduram. This Court rejected the contention urged on behalf of the non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chandu-Ram that the order dated October 14, 1981 was passed in disregard of the principles of natural justice and that the non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chanduram were not served with a notice of the appeal that was filed by the petitioners. After the aforesaid decision of this Court, the petitioners have filed this petition.