JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant has filed this special appeal against the order dated 12.5.1997 rejecting the petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the present appellant, interalia on the ground that no right of the petitioner is shown to exist much less any fundamental right can be held to have been infringed. The genesis is very old. The facts emerging from the orders which has been produced in the writ petition, are that in the first instance respondent No. 2 has lodged a criminal complaint against the present appellant petitioner that he has illegally constructed a water course through the field of complainant when water course was already sanctioned for Murraba No. 43 through the lands comprising out of Murraba No. 47 Killa 21 to 24. This criminal complaint did not succeed. He therefore, lodged complaint before the Ex. Engineer (Irrigation), Sub-Division Jetsar. He on the basis of site inspection as well as on the basis of other record referred to in the order dated 21.8.1986 found against the objector Kehar Singh and held that there are two water courses sanctioned through Murraba No. 42 and on the site also water course in question is in operation for long, which is also supported by Jamabandi. He rejected the application of Kehar Singh. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order Kehar Singh appealed before the Superintending Engineer. The Supdt. Engineer also agreed with finding recorded by the Ex. Engineer vide his order dated 20.6.1988. The Addl. Chief Engineer allowed the appeal of Kehar Singh by the impugned order 9.10.1991. 3. The principle ground urged before the learned single Judge challenging the order was that it was a non-speaking order not giving reasons to support of its conclusion and at any rate in reaching its conclusion it has ignored the relevant material which was before the lower authorities and has been referred to in those orders that makes the order without application of mind. 4. As noticed above since the learned single Judge was of the opinion that no right of the petitioner is being effected by the impugned order, the petition has been rejected. 5. 4. As noticed above since the learned single Judge was of the opinion that no right of the petitioner is being effected by the impugned order, the petition has been rejected. 5. However, having heard learned Counsel for the appellants we are of the opinion that it cannot be said in the facts and circumstances of the present case that the appellant petitioner does not have a litigating right. The existence of water course through Murraba No. 42 is an admitted fact inasmuch as respondent No. 2 Kehar Singh has moved an application for closing the existing water course through his land Murraba No. 42 long back. It cannot be gain-said that the closing of an existing water course which forms part of established system of irrigation, if it is altered will affect the rights of all persons claiming right to irrigate their lands through such established system or irrigation. Any change in established system of irrigation has to be effected only in accordance with procedure laid in Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act & Rules framed therein. The controversy between the parties has been whether the appellant petitioner has constructed the existing water course without authority of law which did not confer on him any right or it was already sanctioned water course which conferred upon him a right to get water for irrigation for his land through such existing water course. Any decision on this issue cannot be said to be of academic interest to the parties not affecting their right. The decision on either way vitally affects the rights of the parties. In one case it affects the right of the land holder adversely for irrigating his land through the established water course, in the other it affects the right of person through whose land water course is sanctioned. 6. Having read the order under challenge we are further of the opinion that Addl. Chief Engineer has allowed the appeal by merely observing that no certified copy of the map bearing the signatures of the authorised officer has been placed before him and therefore he concludes that there is no material to support that the water course was sanctioned through Murraba No. 42. However it does not care to refer to any of the materials to which the lower authorities had referred to and relied on which included earlier orders, entry in Jamabandi and the site inspections. However it does not care to refer to any of the materials to which the lower authorities had referred to and relied on which included earlier orders, entry in Jamabandi and the site inspections. We are therefore of the opinion that the order of the Addl. Chief Engineer, who while hearing the appeal against the orders of lower authorities, affecting rights of the disputing parties, exercises quasi judicial functions and is under an obligation to give reasons for his orders and the demand of fair procedure requires of him that he considers all relevant material that comes before him and does not keep out of consideration relevant material, which also find an expression in the order, so as to make it clear that the order has been made after due application of mind on relevant consideration. The order singularly fails to live upto that standard. To this conclusion the learned single Judge has also reached inasmuchas it has been observed in order under appeal: "It is true that the Addl Chief Engineer has allowed the appeal on short ground that there was no certified map and he has not considered and dealt with the other reasons assigned by the Ex. Engineer and Superintending Engineer in their orders Annexs. 1 &2." 7. This is our opinion is sufficient to allow the appeal and quash the order of the Addl. Chief Engineer and this we do. 8. The appeal is allowed. The order of learned single Judge is set aside. We also quash the impugned order of the Addl. Chief Engineer. We further direct the competent officer to decide the appeal filed by Kehar Singh afresh in accordance with law.Writ petition dismissed. *******