JUDGMENT 1. - At the request of learned counsel for the parties all these petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order today as the points involved in these petitions are the same. 2. The notification dated August 11, 1986 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt, was published on August 28,1986 in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Rajasthan Irrigation Drainage Act, 1954, by which the State Govt, made amendment in the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 and inserted new sub-rule (c) after sub-rule (b) of Rule 55 of the Rules, 1955. Rule 55 (c) reads as under: "55(c). An appeal shall lie to the Chief Engineer/Additional Chief Engineer/Commissioner OAD, Chambal, Kota under their respective jurisdiction from any order passed by the superintending Irrigation Officer under the Act or these Rules." 3. Thus, under Rule 55 (c) an appeal would lie to the Chief Engineer/Additional Chief Engineer/Commissioner C.D., Chambal, Kota under their respective jurisdiction from any order passed by the Superintending Irrigation Officer under the Act or the Rules. Accordingly the aggrieved persons filed their appeals before the Chief Engineer etc. On 3-5-96, officer on special duty Irrigation by order of the Governor issued another notification in exercise of powers conferred under Section 60 of the Act and made the amendment in Rule 55 of the Rules. The notification is reproduced as under:- "Government of Rajasthan Irrigation Department. No. F. 22(8) lrrig./95 Jaipur. Dated 3-5-96. Notification In exercise of powers conferred under Section 60 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (Act of 1954), the State Government hereby makes the following amendment in Rule 55 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 namely:- Amendment. I the said rule. - "The existing clause (c) of Rule 55 is hereby deleted with immediate effect." By order of the Governor Sd/- (R. C. Agarwal) Officer on Special Duty Irrigation." 4. As per the said notification clause (c) of Rule 55 under which appeal use to lie before the Chief Engineer etc. that clause was deleted with immediate effect i.e. from 3-5-96. - "The existing clause (c) of Rule 55 is hereby deleted with immediate effect." By order of the Governor Sd/- (R. C. Agarwal) Officer on Special Duty Irrigation." 4. As per the said notification clause (c) of Rule 55 under which appeal use to lie before the Chief Engineer etc. that clause was deleted with immediate effect i.e. from 3-5-96. It is to be stated that the State Govt, has powers under Section 60 of the Act to make the Rules which include amendment in the Rules, but Section 60(2) of the Act clearly provides that such rules shall have to be published in official gazette and it shall have force of law only upon its publication Section 60(2) of the Act reads as under:- "60(2): Such rules shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall thereupon have the force of law". 5. It is an admitted fact that though the sub-rule 55 (c) came to be deleted by the aforesaid impugned notification dated 3-5-96 has not still published in official gazette. Before it is published in official gazette it has no force of law as provided under Section 60(2) of the Act. Still the Chief Engineer thought that once the notification is issued he has no power to entertain the appeals and therefore, by an order passed on different dates in all these petitions he dismissed all the appeal on the sole ground that provision of appeal provided under Rule 55 (c) of the Rules has been deleted. 6. Aggrieved of that orders all the petitioners have filed these petitions before this Court and challenged the impugned orders passed by the Chief Engineer in their respective appeal by which their appeals were dismissed only on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain such appeal after decision of Rule 55 (c) of the Rules under which appeals were filed before him. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Chief Engineer on the basis of impugned notification dated 3-5-96 are bad in law and illegal and liable to be set aside as the said notification has yet not been published in official gazette and, therefore, it has no force of law. It was submitted that the notification will come into force only after its publication in the official gazette. It was submitted that the notification will come into force only after its publication in the official gazette. It was also submitted that the said notification he has no retrospective effect and, therefore, till the said notification is published the Chief Engineer is bound to decide the appeals filed by him till the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette. 8. Learned counsel Shri Bhansali, appearing for the State Govt, and Chief Engineer frankly conceded that said notification has yet not been published in official gazette. Therefore, they were not in a position to defend the impugned order on this ground. However, learned counsel Shri Bhansali try to raise a preliminary objection regarding joint petitions filed by some of the petitioners in these group matters. This was supported by learned counsel Shri Acharya appearing for the private respondents in some of the cases. Mr. Acharya has also submitted that in two petitions, wherein, he is appearing for the respondents are required to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have suppressed the fact of filing of civil suit and obtained stay from this Court for which he has tried to rely upon the authority of Supreme Court reported in 1996 (3) JT 21 and of this Court reported in 1991(1) RLR 210 and 1991 (2) RLR 466 . It was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners who have filed joint writ petitions that they have filed joint petitions before this Court as they had tiled joint appeals before the Chief Engineer against the order of Superintending Engineer and, therefore, they have to lie joint writ petition before this Court. It was also submitted that this objection raised by the respondents counsel will have no effect in the present case because the order of Chief Engineer is ab initio void as the notification which has yet to come in force and till today it has no force of law. In one case Shri Singhal submitted that he has filed an application on behalf of the Shri Het Ram (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2529/96) that in one case even appeal is filed after the date of notification and, therefore, this case can be segregated. 9. The preliminary objection raised by Mr. Basti Chand and Mr. In one case Shri Singhal submitted that he has filed an application on behalf of the Shri Het Ram (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2529/96) that in one case even appeal is filed after the date of notification and, therefore, this case can be segregated. 9. The preliminary objection raised by Mr. Basti Chand and Mr. Acharya has got substance, but in a given case, it has no effect because as stated earlier when the orders passed by the Chief Engineer in all appeals based upon such notification which has not yet come into force then such objection would loose its significance. One more objection regarding suppression of material fact of filing of civil suit which is otherwise to be viewed very seriously as held by the Apex Court in its judgment reported in 1996 (3) JT 21 and two cases of this Court, but it would not have effect in the present cases because the relief granted in one matter would govern the cases in which even those persons who have not filed petitions. 10. Before parting with the judgment I must point out that learned counsel Shri Kharlia relied upon the judgment of apex Court in case of Ramesh Singh v. Chinta Devi, reported in 1996 (5) JT (SC) 543 , wherein, it has been held that:- "The right to appeal is vested right unless the new Act expressly or by necessary implication makes the provision applicable retrospectively, the right to appeal will crystallise in the appellant on the institution of the application in the Tribunal of first instance and that vested right of appeal would not be dislodged of the enactment of the new Act." 11. As stated earlier the notification would come into force when it is published in the official Gazette. The appeals filed till that date would be maintainable and the Chief Engineer is bound to decide the appeals in accordance with law. 12. In view of the above discussion, all these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned 11 orders passed by the Chief Engineer dismissing the appeals on the ground that he has no jurisdiction in view of the notification dated 3-5-1996 are quashed and set aside. The Chief Engineer is directed to hear and decide the appeals in accordance with law.Petitions allowed. *******