JUDGMENT 1. - Issue notice for final disposal. 2. Mr. Arjun Singh Rathore, Deputy Government Counsel appearing for the Irrigation Department is present today in the Court and is directed to accept the notices. He accepts notice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by a common order, the respondent Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer debarred the petitioner and others from irrigating the field for a period of one year and also imposed penalty by 20 times against which the Sukhvinder Singh and Roop Singh filed a writ petition being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1131/2006 which came to be allowed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 11th September, 2007 and the case of the present petitioner is on identical facts as the petitioner's grand father was one of the person against whom the order has been passed and that order is also against the Sukhvinder Singh and Roop Singh and therefore, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that writ petition may be allowed in terms of order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1131/2006; Sukhvinder Singh & Anr. v. Superintending Engineer & Ors. decided on 11th September, 2007 . 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally heard and decided at the admission stage. 5. I have carefully gone through the order Annexure-3 passed by the respondent Executive Engineer as also the order Annexure-7 of Superintending Engineer. The order Annexure-3 passed by respondent Executive Engineer is against Sukhvinder Singh S/o Baldev Singh, Ramswaroop S/o Bhajan Lal, Thana Singh S/o Hakam Singh, Roop Singh S/o Kapoor Singh, Rood Singh S/o Kapoor Singh. So far as Sukhvinder Singh and Roop Singh are concerned, they filed a writ petition being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1131/2006 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 11th September, 2007. The very order is against Thana Singh who is father of the petitioner who is said to have expired and threfore, the petitioner is also similarly situated of that Sukhvinder Singh and Roop Singh. In the circumstances, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the similar treatment that was allowed to Sukhvinder Singh and Roop Singh. In this view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed in the terms of the order passed in Sukhvinder Singh and Anr. v. Superintending Engineer & Ors. (supra). 6. In the circumstances, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the similar treatment that was allowed to Sukhvinder Singh and Roop Singh. In this view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed in the terms of the order passed in Sukhvinder Singh and Anr. v. Superintending Engineer & Ors. (supra). 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1131/2008; Sukhvinder Singh & Anr. v. Superintending Engineer & Ors. and the order dated 29.12.2005 passed by Executive Engineer and order dated 13.6.2008 passed by Superintending Engineer are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******