IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2339 of 2010 Date of Decision: April 20, 2011 Kewal Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Superintendent, Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. P.P.S. Brar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 7.7.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2 viz. Divisional Canal Officer, Canal Division, Faridkot; and Order dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.1 viz. CWP No.2339 of 2010 [2] Superintendent, Canal Officer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana. 2. It appears that respondent No.3, Harbhagwan Singh, made an application that khal which has been dug forcibly may be closed and the petitioner, herein, be directed to continue with Khal 94/M, 4-7-14-17-24. The khal that has been opened forcibly, be directed to be closed. 3. An enquiry was got conducted at the instance of Divisional Canal Officer. Application of respondent No.3 has been accepted vide Order dated 7.7.2009 (Annexure P-2). It has been stated that new Khal that had been enabled by the petitioner, has many turns and was not found as existing in the records. 4. Petitioner carried an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer that has been dismissed vide other impugned Order dated 22.10.2009, Annexure P-3. 5. The only basis of the petitioner for filing this case is Annexure P-1 which purportedly is a letter addressed by the Ziledar to the Sub Divisional Officer, Jagraon Canal Sub Division, Akahara. The document indicates the case as set up by the petitioner. 6. In reply filed on behalf of the official respondents, it has specifically been CWP No.2339 of 2010 [3] stated that letter dated 21.6.2007 viz. Annexure P-1 is not available in the revenue file. 7. Annexure P-1 is photocopy of a communication between two departmental authorities, if it is accepted to be correct. Copy of the communication has not been addressed to either the petitioner or the private respondent. Because only a vague photocopy (in vernacular) of Annexure P-1 has been placed on record, existence of which has been denied by the official respondents, no possible relief can be granted to the petitioner merely on the basis of Annexure P-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring any other material on the record so as to substantiate his claim. 8. No ground for judicial review is made out. Impugned orders have been passed while taking into account relevant material and considerations. 9. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) April 20, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?