Hon'ble LODHA, J.—This writ petition is directed against order dated 29.5.09 of the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Sri Vijaynagar, whereby the said authority while reviewing its earlier order dated 2.4.09 deciding the appeal preferred by inter alia the petitioner herein, has restored the order dated 19.12.08 of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Annopgarh Branch, Division-I, Sri Vijaynagar, debarring the petitioner from irrigation facility for one year and imposing 20 times `tawan'. 2. The petitioners Raja Ram and Hanuman Ram are holding agriculture land ad measuring 2.50 bighas and 9.20 bighas in murabba No.271/480 and 271/484 respectively in chak 15 LM. In the canal area, the cultivators get water supply according to their turn fixed by the Department of Irrigation. It is alleged that on 21.8.08, the Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Sub Division, Sri Vijaynagar raided the place and found that two tractors, one put in the canal and other standing at the bank of the canal were being used for taking the water unauthorisedly by using the pump. The penal proceedings for taking the water unauthorisedly were initiated against the petitioners. After issuing a notice and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, vide order dated 19.12.08 passed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Anoopgarh Brach, Division I, Sri Vijaynagar, the petitioners were debarred from their water supply turn for a period of one year and 20 times `tawan' was imposed upon them. 3. Aggrieved by order dated 19.12.08, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Hanumangarh Junction. The appeal was partly allowed and the order passed by the Executive Engineer debarring the petitioners from water supply for a period of one year was set aside, however, the 20 times `tawan' imposed was maintained. 4. After passing of the aforesaid order, on a representation being made by Lunia Minor Water Conservation Committee, the Superintending Engineer reviewed its order dated 2.4.09 and restored the order passed by the Executive Engineer dated 19.12.08. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioners having been decided by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 2.4.09, he had become functus officio and could not have reviewed its order in absence of any provision incorporated in the Rajasthan Irrigation & Drainage Rules, 1955 permitting the Appellate Authority to review its order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioners having been decided by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 2.4.09, he had become functus officio and could not have reviewed its order in absence of any provision incorporated in the Rajasthan Irrigation & Drainage Rules, 1955 permitting the Appellate Authority to review its order. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Authority has seriously erred in reviewing its order under the pressure of respondent No. 4 who was not party to the proceedings in appeal. 6. It is to be noticed that under Rule 31(2) of the Rules, persons drawing excess supply of water for the purpose of irrigating their fields is liable to be punished with 20 times `tawan' for each, and separate distinct occasion on the area to which such water is supplied or spread and they shall also be liable to be debarred from canal irrigation for one year. Indisputably, while determining the liability of penalty in terms of Rule 31(2) of the Rules, the original authority and the Appellate Authority act as a quashi judicial authority. It is settled law that a quasi judicial authority cannot review its order unless the power to review is specifically conferred by the relevant statute. It is not in dispute that there is no provision incorporated in the Rules which empowers the Appellate Authority to review its order and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Superintending Engineer acting upon the representation made by the respondent No. 4 which was not even party to the proceedings, is ex facie without jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned passed by the Superintending Engineer dated 28.5.09 is set aside. The order dated 2.4.09 passed by the Superintending Engineer setting aside the order debarring the petitioners from water supply for a period of one year, however, maintaining the 20 times `tawan' imposed by the Executive Engineer is restored. No order as to costs.