CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12617 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 25 ,2011 Baldev Singh and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Superintending Canal Officer, Patiala and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. Mr. R. K. Shukla, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by Superintendent Canal Officer, declining their prayer in regard to construction of a water course. The counsel contends that the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer is cryptic and has been so made while ignoring the evidence, which was available on record. In this regard, reference is made to the report submitted by the Staff as well as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12617 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer. In this background, the action on the part of the Superintending Canal Officer to simply mention that no evidence has been produced, appears to be a case of ignoring the relevant material, which was required to be taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. The Superintending Canal Officer may have a jurisdiction to pass any order, which he considers appropriate in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case but the grievance is that the order has been passed without taking into consideration the evidence and the material that was available before the Authority. It is noticed that mention so made by the Superintending Canal Officer that there is no evidence, appears to be an observation, which is apparently against the evidence available on record. In this view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to set- aside the order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer and remand the case back to him with a direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the evidence that is available on record. It is so ordered. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Superintending Canal Officer, respondent No.1, on 25.8.2011, who shall consider and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. July 25, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE