Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 484 (RAJ)

Paramjeet Singh v. State

2005-02-14

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-An appeal under Clause (c) of Rule 55 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1955 was preferred by the respondent No. 5 Shri Balbir Singh before the Chief Engineer (Irrigation) Sriganganagar assailing the validity and propriety of the order dated 210.1993 passed by the Superintending Engineer exercising appellate powers under Clause (b) of Rule 55 of the Act of 1955. The Chief Engineer by the Judgment impugned dated 210.1993 accepted the appeal and quashed the order dated 210.1993 referred above. By the order dated 210.1993 the appeal preferred by the present petitioner was accepted by the Superintending Engineer setting aside the order dated 010.1993 passed by the Executive Engineer, Gang Canal, South Division, Sriganganagar. This petition for writ in the certiorari is preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the Judgment dated 210.1993. 2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Chief Engineer decided the appeal without even giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. According to the Counsel for the petitioner no notice was given to the petitioner by the Chief Engineer while adjudicating the appeal and deciding the same by the Judgment impugned dated 210.1993. The fact with regard to non-issuance of notice has not been disputed by the Counsel for the respondents. However, he has stated that the order passed by the Chief Engineer does not effect rights of the petitioner adversely as the Chief Engineer has directed the Superintending Engineer to decide the appeal afresh as such according to him no right of the petitioner has been infringed. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. 4. The Chief Engineer while exercising the powers under Clause (c) of the Rule 55 of the Act of 1955 was exercising quasi judicial powers. A valuable right accrued in favour of the petitioner by acceptance of the appeal under the order dated 210.1993. A right accrued in favour of the petitioner has been taken over by the Chief Engineer in his absence and without issuing even notice to show-cause to him. The order passed by the Chief Engineer, therefore, affects civil rights of the petitioner and no such order could have been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. In view of it the order passed by the Chief Engineer bearing No. F-5/Revenue/Appeal/139/93/911-12 dated 210.1993 is hereby quashed. The order passed by the Chief Engineer, therefore, affects civil rights of the petitioner and no such order could have been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. In view of it the order passed by the Chief Engineer bearing No. F-5/Revenue/Appeal/139/93/911-12 dated 210.1993 is hereby quashed. The Chief Engineer is directed to hear the appeal afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and while adjudicating the appeal he will also take into consideration the existing circumstances. It is stated at Bar that now as a consequence of a notification dated 10.05.1996 the provision with regard to appeal before the Chief Engineer has been deleted. It is made clear that as the matter pertains prior to 10.05.1996, therefore, the Chief Engineer while adjudicating this appeal will exercise the powers as were vested in him prior to 10.05.1996. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.