IMI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this petition for writ is as sailing validity of the order dated 8.2.1996 passed by the Chief Engineer, Hanumangarh Junction. in appeal No. 106/94. Imi Lal Vs. Smt. Vidhya Devi , By the aforesaid order, the Chief Engineer dismissed the appeal preferred by present petitioner Imi Lal affirming the order dated 7.7.1994 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle. Hanumangarh.

(2.) The Superintending Engineer. Irrigation Circle, Hanumangarh by the order dated 7.7.1994, directed the Executive Engineer Irrigation Circle, II Hanumangarh Junction, to stop the supply of water to the petitioners, while exercising the powers under Rule 10 (1) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955. Being aggrieved by the order dated 7.7.1994, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Chief Engineer which was allowed on 9.9.1994. While accepting the appeal Chief Engineer though noted down the contentions of the petitioner as well as of the respondent, however the finding given was not supported by any reason. The Chief Engineer simply stated that in view of the argument made by the counsel for the parties on 22.8.1984, the order to discontinue the water supply does not appear correct. The order passed by the Chief Engineer on 9.9.1994 was challenged by the respondent Smt. Vidhya Devi by way of filing a civil suit before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), I-Ianumangarh. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2. C.P.C. was also filed by Smt. Vidhya Devi. The application preferred by Smt. Vidhya Devi was disposed of by the competent Civil Court by the order dated 21.9.1995. The Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), I-Ianumangarh accepted the application under Order 39, Rules I and 2 and directed the Chief Engineer to decide the appeal afresh by givin opportunity of hearing to the parties in dispute. In compliance of the direction given by the Addl. Civil Judge. (Junior Division), Hanumangarh, the Chief Engineer after hearing the parties passed the order on 8.2.1996. This order dated 8.2.1996 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) 1 have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the order dated 8.2.1996 suffers from an incurable lacuna i.e. the order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order. It does not prescribe any reason to support the finding.