1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.756/2008 (Sheo Lal & Anr. Vs. Supdt. Engineer & Ors.) Date of order : 04.02.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. S.D. Goswami, for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Beniwal, for respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Earlier, the petitioners preferred a writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition No.4382/2007 before this Court against the order dated 11.4.2007 passed by Executive Engineer, Survey and Investigation, Lift Canal-I, Indira Gandhi Nehru Pariyojna, Rawatsar whereby an order was passed for shifting water outlet in Chak 8 LD from 12.670 to 13.600. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2007 with the following directions, which read as under : 2 “In view of it, the order dated 11.04.2007 passed by the Executive Engineer, Survey and Investigation, Lift Canal-I, Indira Gandhi Nehru Pariyojna, Rawatsar making an order to sift water outlet in Chak 8 LD from 12.670 to 13.600 is quashed. However, looking to immediate need of irrigation, I consider it appropriate to direct the Divisional irrigation Officer to decide the issue regarding the shifting of water outlet in Chak 8 LD expeditiously. The parties to the proceedings are in agreement to remain present before the Divisional Irrigation Officer for availing opportunity of hearing as prescribed under sub-rule 3 of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1955 on 24.12.2008. The Divisional Irrigation Officer shall pass an appropriate order as per sub-rule 3 of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1955 thereafter as early as possible preferably within a period of 15 days.” After passing the aforesaid order by this Court and as per the directions of this Court, the Executive Engineer again decided the matter and allowed the outlet at 13.600 (R) vide order dated 16.1.2008 (Annexure-2). Against that order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Superintending Engineer and that appeal is still pending. In the said appeal, the application for interim relief filed by 3 the petitioners was rejected. The apprehension of the petitioners is that their appeal will not be decided by the appellate authority within time and they will suffer irreparable loss of irrigation. In the circumstances, I deem it just and proper to direct the Superintending Engineer before whom the appeal preferred by the petitioners is pending to decide the same within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is also made clear that while deciding the appeal of the petitioners, the concerned authority shall provide opportunity of hearing to all affected parties. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun