Civil Writ Petition No.3375 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: January 21, 2009 Manoj Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS Chief Canal Officer, Irrigation Department, Haryana & 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.K.B.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.S.R.Hooda, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 8. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has challenged the order whereby respondent Kaptan Singh has been provided a watercourse `AB' on the ground that there exists a watercourse `CBE' and as such the new watercourse would not be necessary. This order was passed on an application filed by respondent Nos.4 to 6 asking for sanctioning of a new watercourse. The site plan is annexed with the petition to show that there are existing watercourses through which the land of the respondents is being irrigated, but still the watercourse `AB' has Civil Writ Petition No.3375 of 2007 : 2 : been sanctioned by the Divisional Canal Officer. In an appeal filed before respondent No.2, the case was remanded to the D.C.O. with direction to publish fresh scheme for sanctioning watercourse in the eastern dol (boundary). This remand order, according to the counsel for the petitioner, acquired finality as no appeal or revision was filed against the same. One Dalip Singh and others preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, which was dismissed in view of the earlier order passed. One Sat Narain preferred an appeal before respondent No.1, who remanded the case to respondent No.2 to look into the issue again and to see which of the existing arrangement is most appropriate for carrying irrigation. It is then that respondent No.2 remanded the case back to respondent No.3 with direction to sanction the watercourse `AB'. Prayer is that this would lead to a bifurcation of the holding of the petitioner and as such an unnecessary harassment. Respondent No.2, as per the counsel, in violation of the remand order has sanctioned watercourse `BC' from the land of the petitioner. Respondent No.2, however, rejected the appeal of the petitioner though it was in violation of his earlier direction. Respondent No.1 also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and he has now filed the present writ petition. Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed. The counsel for the petitioner would mainly submit that the watercourse has been sanctioned in violation of the earlier directions issued by respondent No.2 and thus will be violative of the direction and accordingly amenable to the jurisdiction of writ court. Despite repeated queries, the counsel could not point out any Civil Writ Petition No.3375 of 2007 : 3 : violation of procedure or law which was required to be corrected by issuing a writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of certiorari. Conditions necessary for issuance of writ of certiorari are- when any body of persons- having legal authority to determine questions altering rights of subjects-having the duty to act judicially-act in excess of their legal authority then the writ may issue. Mere inconvenience or absence of other remedy does not create a right to certiorari. The judicial or quasi judicial authority must act (i) without or in excess of jurisdiction; or (ii) in contravention of the rules of natural justice; or (iii) commit an error apparent on the face of record. Generally certiorari will lie (a) when the order of the inferior tribunal is obtained by fraud, collusion or corruption. (b) when the tribunal has acted contrary to principles of natural justice. (c ) when there is error apparent on the face of record. (d) when tribunal's conclusions are based on no evidence. (e) when decision is vitiated by malafides (f) when decision is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of record. It will not lie when the finding of the tribunal is erroneous in fact or the tribunal has acted without sufficient evidence or has misdirected itself in considering the evidence or has not admitted legal evidence or rejected legal evidence or has misconstrued a statute (See Ramachandra v. Civil Writ Petition No.3375 of 2007 : 4 : Sankaramma, 1956 SCA 636). In short, it does not lie for erroneous decision in respect of matter which is within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. In the case of T.C.Bassapa Vs. T.Nagappa, AIR 1954 (SC) 440, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under in regard to scope of writ of certiorari:- “10. A tribunal may be competent to enter upon an enquiry but in making the enquiry it may act in flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or where no particular procedure is prescribed, it may violate the principles of natural justice. A writ of `certiorari' may be available in such cases. An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of `certiorari' but it must be a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings e.g. when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by `certiorari' but not a mere wrong decision. Xxx xxx xxxx It is plain that `certiorari' will not issue as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. It does not lie in order to bring up an order or decision for re-hearing of the issue raised in the proceedings. It exists to correct error of law when revealed on the face of an order or decision or irregularity or absence of or excess of jurisdiction when shown.” Reference can also be made to the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai, 2003(6) SCC 675, wherein it is observed Civil Writ Petition No.3375 of 2007 : 5 : as under:- “12. In the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction the High Court proceeds on the assumption that a court which has jurisdiction over a subject matter, has not, therefore, for the purposes of certiorari assign to itself the role of an appellate court and step into re-appreciating and reevaluating the evidence and substitute its own findings in place of those arrived at the inferior court.” The petitioner basically would require this court to interfere in the order impugned in the writ petition on the ground that there has been violation of the directions issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. In a way, the petitioner would want this court to re-appreciate the facts and then come to a different conclusion from the one as arrived by the authorities under the Canal Act. That would not be within the scope of writ jurisdiction. Finding of tribunal, may be erroneous in fact but would not be amenable to correction by writ. No violation of law or procedure is pointed out before me which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. There was no error apparent on the face of proceedings or disregard of any provisions of law. It may need a mention that the court while sitting in a writ jurisdiction cannot act as a court of appeal in disguise. Accordingly, I do not see any justification to interfere in the impugned order on the grounds as pleaded and submitted before me. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. January 21, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE