Honble SHETHNA, J.–Though served, no one is present for the respondents. Heard learned counsel Shri Trivedi for the petitioner. (2). The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 2412.96 (Annex.6) passed by the Superintending Engineer (Irrigation), Suratgarh, respondent No.4. It is challenged on two grounds (i) that such order could be pas- sed only by the Divisional Irrigation Officer and not by the Superintending Engineer, who is the appellate authority. In support of this submission, learned counsel Shri Trivedi has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Baga Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1) and (ii) the Superintending Engineer has mechanically passed the order at the instance of Shri Devi Singh Bhati, the then Ir- rigation Minister of State of Rajasthan without applying his own mind, which is clear from the impugned order at Annex.6 itself. (3). On 4.7.98 though the respondents were duly served but no reply was filed, therefore, in the interest of justice, four weeks time was granted by V.G. Palshikar, J. to file reply. Once again four weeks time was granted to file reply by V.G. Palshi- kar, J. On 7.8.98. In spite of this, till today no such reply is filed on behalf of the respondents. Not only that, no one has remained present at the time of hearing of this petition when the matter was called. (4). The averments made on oath in this petition remained totally uncontroverted. There is a lot of substance in both the submissions made by learned cou- nsel Shri Trivedi for the petitioner. The Superintending Engineer, being the appellate authority, should not have passed the impugned order and that too at the instance of the Minister without applying his mind. This takes away the right of a party to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Superintending Engineer. The point it squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Baga Rams case (supra). (5). In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 24.12.96 (Annex.6) passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.