This court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order remanding a matter to the Divisional Canal Officer. The petitioner argued that prior mandatory approval was needed before the Divisional Officer passed an order. The court held that once remanded, the officer must act strictly according to law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 12999 of 2016 Date of Decision: 15.7.2016
Jagdish and others
.....Petitioners
Vs.
The Divisional Canal Officer, Tohana Water Services Division, Tohana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)
Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.5.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Chief Canal Officer, Haryana, whereby he has remanded the case to Divisional Canal Officer, for fresh decision.
The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Chief Canal Officer should have directed the Divisional Canal Officer to first seek approval of the Chief Canal Officer under Rule 101 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Rules, 1976 because approval of the Chief Canal Officer is mandatory for the Division Canal Officer before passing any order.
AMIT KUMAR 2016.07.15 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Civil Writ Petition No. 12999 of 2016 2
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the record of the case, including the impugned order Annexure P-3, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the Chief Canal Officer has remanded the matter to the Division Canal Officer for a fresh decision, it goes without saying that the Division Canal Officer shall pass a fresh order, strictly in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, no further clarification is required at the hands of this Court.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that present writ petition is wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
With the observations made above, present writ petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
15.7.2016 Ak Sharma
AMIT KUMAR 2016.07.15 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
AMIT KUMAR 2016.07.15 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
whether the Divisional Canal Officer was required to seek mandatory approval from the Chief Canal Officer under Rule 101 before passing an order after the matter was remanded for a fresh decision.
Jagdish and others
The Divisional Canal Officer, Tohana Water Services Division, Tohana and others
Rameshwar Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
