Civil Writ Petition No.3319 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3319 of 1992 Date of Decision:23.03.2011 Ram Narain ......Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Nitin Rathee, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Kirti Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Nemo for the remaining respondents. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered and is liable to be disposed of in the same terms of the order dated 05.10.1993 of this Court, rendered in CWP No.9455 of 1991 titled as Suraj Bhan and others Versus The State of Haryana and others. The operative part of which is, as under:- “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that the writ petitions can be disposed of with a direction to the Superintending Engineer to re-determine the matter as indicated hereinafter. Under rule 9 of the Rules for Extra Supply of Canal Water for Gardens and Orchards, 1946, it is incumbent upon the Superintending Engineer to first assess the amount of water that can be released for garden area and thereafter invite applications from the garden owners which are required to be submitted by the end of September and thereafter required to be transmitted to the Fruit Specialist who after examining the stability of the area for the gardens is required to submit his recommendations to the Civil Writ Petition No.3319 of 1992 2 Superintending Engineer concerned and thereafter, he was to fix a date not later than the end of December so as to decide which applicant is to the given enhanced supply of water. The rule leaves a little discretion to the Superintending Engineer in the matter because in case of demand or enhanced supply of water being equal or less to the supply of water available, then he has no option but to sanction enhanced supply of water to every applicant. In a situation, where the demand for enhanced supply of water exceeds the supply available, then he has to take decision by drawing lots in the presence of the Fruit Specialist and the applicants who may choose to be present. Of course, the rules are not framed in exercise of powers under Section 75 of the Northern Indian Canal and Drainage Act, 1973, but these rules have been held to have the force of law by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bant Singh's case(supra). Rule 9 thus, provides that all those persons who have a garden will have an equal chance to get water supply and would not be discriminated in any manner. From the various annexures placed on record, it is difficult to determine as to whether the Superintending Engineer invited applications or gave proper notice to the persons concerned before the water supply was enhanced. As per the case set up in the pleadings, water supply was enhanced as far back as 1990 and for the last more than three years, water is being supplied to the gardens. In case the order is quashed for want of notice, it would cause irreparable loss to the respondents who have irrigated their gardens for the last more than three years. The grievance of the petitioners can be met by giving a direction to the Superintending Engineer that he would hear the objections/representations of the petitioners to be submitted to him, within two months from today. On receiving such objections of representations, he would determine as to whether discharge was increased in the water course of Teja Khera minors for making up the deficiency caused by the enhanced water supply to the gardens. In case he finds that the discharge was increased, then the supply already enhanced shall not be reduced. But if he finds that discharge was not increased and reduction was made from the 'Wari' of any other share-holder, then he would pass appropriate orders in this regard. I am sure that in case any order is required to be passed, the Superintending Engineer would take into consideration the fact that the supply of water is being given to the gardens of the respondents for the last several years. Consequently, the writ petitions stand disposed of in the terms indicated above. No costs.” Civil Writ Petition No.3319 of 1992 3 2. In this view of the matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders(Annexures P-2 and P-3) are hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the concerned Superintending Engineer, to decide the matter afresh, in the light of aforesaid observations, in the same terms of the order dated 05.10.1993 passed in CWP No.9455 of 1991and in accordance with law. March 23, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE