JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral)- The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioners claimed that they were not getting sufficient canal water for irrigating their fields. In the wake of their application, the Divisional Canal Officer-respondent No.3 (for brevity “the DCO”) ordered the shifting of head outlet No.2478-R, Siyana Minor, for the purpose of irrigation of their land, under the provisions of The Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 and the Rules made thereunder (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and relevant Rules”), by virtue of order dated 7.2.2008 (Annexure P1). 2. Dissatisfied with the said order, Sumer Singh and others, private respondents filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Superintending Canal Officer-respondent No.2 (for short “the SCO”), by means of order dated 7.8.2008 (Annexure P2), which, in substance, is as under:- Decision The appellants and respondents were heard in detail and other relevant record produced before the court was examined. The site was also inspected on 4.7.2008 in the presence of appellants and respondents and other shareholders. During inspection it was found that the underground pipeline was laid direct from the outlet in the area of village path left in consolidation in southern side 3 to 4 ft width and a Hodi was found constructed at site about 90 ft away from the canal in killa No.3 of rectangle No.89. Four Number Diesel pump sets were also seen installed at site around the Hodi. From the perusal of the record and site condition it reveals that irrigation is being done by lifting water from Hodi constructed in Kila No.89/3 in side as well as outside boundary of the chack of the existing outlet and most of the shareholders of this outlet are deprived from irrigation facility. From perusal of the slopes of land it reveals that the levels from South to North are down and fixation of outlet in Southern side will help in better irrigation. In view of grounds of appeal, statements given by the appellants, respondents, shareholders of Kila No.9/2 of Rectangle No.89, site condition the demand of appellants is not genuine. From perusal of the slopes of land it reveals that the levels from South to North are down and fixation of outlet in Southern side will help in better irrigation. In view of grounds of appeal, statements given by the appellants, respondents, shareholders of Kila No.9/2 of Rectangle No.89, site condition the demand of appellants is not genuine. Hence I order to shift the existing outlet from RD 2478/R Siyana Minor to RD 2205/R Siyana Minor by partly modifying the decision of the DCO Ch.Dadri dated 07.02.2008. The appeal is rejected.” 3. Aggrieved by these orders, they (private respondents) filed the appeal (revision), which was accepted by the Chief Canal Officer-respondent No.1 (in short “the CCO”) in a very casual manner, by way of impugned order dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure P3), which is as follows:- “The grievances of the appellant as well as respondent were heard in detail, revenue record produced in the court was examined thoroughly. From the perusal of the record it has been revealed that the appellant are irrigating their area through the underground pipeline and constructed a hodi in kllla no.3 of rectangle no.89 by lifting water through D/engine at their own cost without paying any charge to any particular person. As such there is no problem to irrigate their fields by the appellants as well as respondents. There is no needs to shift the O/L from the RD 2478/R to 2220/R Siyana Minor. Hence appeal is accepted and decision of SCO is set-aside.” 4. The petitioners did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annexure P3) and preferred the instant writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present writ petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that the DCO as well as SCO considered the matter in the right perspective and recorded the valid reasons in shifting the aforesaid outlet, but the CCO has set aside their well reasoned orders in a very routine manner, by means of impugned cryptic order. 6. As is evident from the record that the DCO as well as SCO considered the matter in the right perspective and recorded the valid reasons in shifting the aforesaid outlet, but the CCO has set aside their well reasoned orders in a very routine manner, by means of impugned cryptic order. The CCO was legally required to deal with each and every reasons recorded by the DCO and SCO before setting aside their orders, but he has simply mentioned that as they are irrigating their area, through underground pipeline, by way of diesel engine at their own costs, therefore, there is no problem to irrigate their land and there is no need to shift the outlet. 7. Here, to me, the CCO slipped into a deep legal error in setting aside the orders of DCO and SCO without assigning any cogent reasons and in a very casual manner. He has not discussed the factual existing position at the spot, other evidence and material on record. The impugned order is non-speaking order and lacks of application of mind. Such statutory authorities under the Act are legally and independently required to record valid reasons. It is now well settled principle of law that every action of such authority must be informed by reasons. The order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of justice and fair play. Every order must be confined and structured by rational and relevant material on record because the valuable rights of the parties are involved in the lis. The revisional power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or by disregarding the rights of all concerned. 8. Exhibiting the importance of passing speaking and reasoned order, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 240 has held (para 8) as under : - “The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasijudicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.” 9. Therefore, to my mind, the impugned order (Annexure P3) cannot legally be maintained and it would in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the matter is remanded back to the CCO for its afresh decision by passing a speaking order. 10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 11. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing of the matter, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P3) is hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to CCO-respondent No.1 to decide the matter afresh, by passing a speaking order, in view of aforesaid observations and in accordance with law. 12. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the CCO-respondent No.1 on 30.11.2011 for further proceedings. 13. Needless to mention here that nothing recorded herein above would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the case, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. -----------------