LPA 230 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 230 of 2009 Date of decision 23 .7.2009 Tota Singh and others ... Appellants Versus Superintendent Canal Officer and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr.Vijay Sharma ,Advocate for the appellants Mr. P.K.Jain, Addl. AG Punjab for respondents 1 and 2 Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 to 5. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 11.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 6589 of 2006 holding that fresh application of the respondent after dismissal of the earlier application on 27.7.2000 for shifting of their fresh outlet was fully competent. Apart from the aforesaid issue the learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the earlier application was not moved on behalf of the respondents so as to bind them with the earlier order dated 27.7.2000 (P.2). When the matter came up for consideration on July 20, 2009 this Court has noted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the size of the outlet belonging to them was approximately 2” x 3” whereas size of the out let allocated to respondent nos. 3 to 5 was 7” x 12”. At that stage, we considered it appropriate to seek the assistance of LPA 230 of 2009 2 Superintending Canal Officer for the purposes of making both the outlets of the same size. The Superintending Canal Officer has appeared before us and has explained that the size of the outlet is dependent upon various factors viz. the size of the holding which is to be irrigated and the pressure of the water. He has also pointed out that this formula is applied to work out the size of the outlet. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the opinion expressed by the Superintending Canal Officer does not admit any exception and the outlet allocated to the appellant is according to the formula devolved by the department. There is thus no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal accordingly fails and the same is dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal itself has been decided on merits, no orders are required on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 23.7.2009 Judge okg