Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1274 (PNJ)

Mani Ram v. Umrao Singh

2000-10-20

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR

body2000
JUDGMENT J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) - The Divisional Canal Officer, Sirsa, suo motu drafted a scheme under Section 17 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 and published the same under Section 18(1) on 14.11.1999. It is the case of the petitioner that as a consequence of the draft scheme prepared brick lining of the private water-course of the petitioner was approved. This order of the Divisional Canal Officer, Sirsa, was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 8.2.2000. 2. Dissatisfied by the order of the Divisional Canal Officer as also with that of the Superintending Canal Officer, the petitioner again preferred an appeal on 28.4.2000 before the Chief Canal Officers. Along with the appeal, the petitioner preferred an application wherein he prayed for a restraint on the implementation of the decisions of the Divisional Canal Officer as well as of the Superintending Canal Officer. It is not disputed that no order was passed on the aforesaid application, a copy of which has been appended to this petition as Annexure P.4. 3. The case of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no order need to have been passed on the application seeking an injunction in view of specific Instructions issued by the Chief Canal Officer on 2.9.1996 and by the Chief Engineer on 18.9.1997. Copies of the aforesaid Instructions have been placed on record of this case as Annexures P.5 and P.6. A perusal of the aforesaid communications undoubtedly express that the Superintending Canal Officer shall not implement any decision which is the subject-matter of appeal pending before the Chief Canal Officers. Thus viewed, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the injunction prayed for in his application (Annexure P.4) must be deemed to have been granted immediately when the appeal was preferred by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has approached this Court under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, challenging the action of the authorities in commencing to line his private water course in furtherance of the directions issued by the Divisional Canal Officer dated 14.11.1999 and the order dated 8.2.2000 passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, despite the pendency of the appeal. 5. Contempt proceedings can be initiated under the aforesaid Act in case there is any quasi-judicial order which has been violated. 5. Contempt proceedings can be initiated under the aforesaid Act in case there is any quasi-judicial order which has been violated. So far orders in Annexures P.5 and P.6 are concerned, in my view, they are administrative orders issued by the Chief Canal Officer. They cannot be considered to be quasi-judicial orders. Since the best case set out by the petitioner is that of violation of administrative orders, in my considered view the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act are not attracted. 6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 7. No costs. Petition dismissed.