w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Moola Ram & Others v/s State of Rajasthan & Others

    Civil Writ Petition No. 1059 of 1995

    Decided On, 17 February 1999

    At, High Court of Rajasthan


    For the Appellants: J.L. Purohit, Advocate. For the Respondents: Basi Chand, Advocate.

Judgment Text

B.J. Sheth, J.

1. The petitioners have challenged in this petition the impugned order passed by the Executive Engineer dated 21 -3-88, Annex. 2, the order passed by the Superintending Engineer on 29-1-91 (Annex. 3) and the impugned order passed by the Chief Engineer on 20-2-95 (Annex. 7).

2. Only one submission was made by the learned counsel Shri Purohit in this petition that the impugned order (Annex. 7) passed by the Chief Engineer is a non-speaking order, therefore, it may be set aside and matter be remanded to him with direction to pass speaking order. This submission of Mr. Purohit cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Chief Engineer was of the opinion that for the purpose of outer irrigation the Superintending Engineer passed the order. Thus, it cannot be said that it was a non-speaking order. It must be stated that the Chief Engineer was deciding the matter in second appeal wherein, he was not required to give detail reasons if he is concurring with the order passed by the authority below. That apart, he has set out the contention raised by both the parties and he has clearly stated that after hearing the parties and also considering the record before him, he found that the order passed by the Superintending Engineer was for better irrigation purpose. In that view of the matter, this Court would not interfere with the order passed by the authorities below in its writ jurisdiction.

3. Before parting I must state that the present arrangement is there regarding supply of water between the parties since years and in absence of any stay such situation continued till today. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision arrived at by the expert persons in their field, in its writ jurisdiction. Hence, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

4. However, if the petitioners are so advised and entitled for compensation then they can approach the competent authority for compensation. Mr. Purohit states that petitioners will approach within one month from today. He further requests that as and when the petitioners approach the authority, the authority may try to decide the case as early as possible. Mr. Basti Chand for the respondents states that as and when the pe

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

titioners approach the authority then the competent authority will try to decide the case in accordance with law as early as possible, subject to period of limitation. 5. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.