IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3811 of 2011 Date of Decision: March 03, 2011 Kulwinder Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondent No.1 i.e. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur, to decide the application for stay dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-6) that has been filed alongwith the statutory appeal entitled ‘Kulwinder Kaur vs. Sukhdev Singh & others’, placed on record as Annexure P-5. 2. Notice of motion to respondent CWP No.3811 of 2011 [2] Nos.1 and 2, at this stage. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been served in Court through Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Requisite number of copies of the petition have been supplied to him. 4. Heard. 5. In view of the limited prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is being disposed of at this stage itself. 6. It has been pointed out that the petitioner filed a statutory appeal under the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873, against order dated 30.9.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Eastern Canal Circle, Ferozepur. Grounds of appeal have been placed on record as Annexure P-5. An application for stay has been filed that has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. 7. Learned counsel contends that neither the appeal is being fixed for hearing nor the application for stay is being decided. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent- State has not been able to dispute the proposition of law that statutory appeal needs to be either heard or some decision is required to be taken on the application for stay. CWP No.3811 of 2011 [3] 9. I have considered the issue. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has a right to early disposal/ decision on her appeal. In case the appeal is not heard, the rights of the petitioner cannot be frustrated by pendency of appeal. The petitioner has filed an application for stay on which no decision has been taken. 10. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed with direction to respondent No.1 i.e. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, Ferozepur, to take a decision on the application for stay within a period of 40 days from today. The said authority is also directed to deal with the appeal and take decision within four months from today. In the meantime, for 40 days, status-quo shall be maintained. 11. It is made clear that the order of status-quo passed today is only in view of the circumstance that statutory appeal or the application for stay has not been decided. It would not mean that this Court has given any observation on the merits of the case so as to influence the authority dealing with the application for stay, or appeal. 12. Copy of the order be given under CWP No.3811 of 2011 [4] signatures of Reader of the Bench. (AJAI LAMBA) March 03, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?