- (1.) THIS is a petition of writ moved by two petitioners, Dalip Singh and Hawa Small, assailing the order of Shri Mani Ram Gudara (respondent No. 1), Minister for irrigation and Power, Haryana Government. There arc 39 respondents in all, the second respon-dent being the Suprintending Canal Officer, Hissar and the remaining respondents are the residents of village Kirmara wno are interested in the warabandi from the canal outlet R. D 103712-R.
(2.) THE facts of this case are that the petitioners and respondents 3 to 39 are interest-ed in the warabandi which was sanctioned by the Deputy Collector, fatehabad, vide his order dated 6th of January, 1967 (Annexure R-2), under section 68 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. After hearing the objections, the parties had unanimously agreed to an arrangement which was incorporated in the order of the Deputy Collector. The opera-tive part of the order runs as under:- "since this arrangement has been unanimously agreed upon, it should work satis-factorily. There being no other technical objection warabandi is sanctioned under Section 68 of the Canal Act No. 21 of 1963, but shall take effect in next crop or on the finalization of other warabandies connected cases whichever is later as certain share holders have objected that the enforcement of this warabandi shall have reciprocal effect much to their disadvantage on other outlets to which they will be shifted but warabandies of these outlets have not been sanctioned. Such an argument is not without force and is accepted". In so far as this was a consent order to which all parties concerned had unanimously agreed it was not questioned by any person by appeal to the divisional Canal Officer under sub-section (5) or in revision under Sub-section (6)presented to Superintending Canal Officer. Orders contemplated under Section 68, unless disturbed by appeal or in revision, are final. The petitioners submitted that order of the Deputy Collector became operative on 16th of April, 1967, and was implemented for three days till 19th of April, 1967. The operation of the order was stayed on receipt of a telegram from respondent No. 1, Shri Mani Ram Gudara, minister for Irrigation and Power, Haryana, Government. The telegram (Annexure a) is reproduced below:- "2254/ 19/4 s. E. /b. C Xen. FBD/d. C. /fbd c/p. S. to I. P. M. Cultivators of village Kirmara had an interview with I. P. M. on 19-4 at hissar. They represented that only W B. of one O/l in their village has been announced whereas there is no announcement for the remaining o/ls of the village. I P. M. has ordered that W B. may be stayed. Please take action immediately. WB may be framed for all O/ls of the village and the WB may be announced con-nectively" It seems that the word 'connectively is an error and the word intended to be used was 'collectively'. The petitioners in consequence of the sudden stoppage of the how of water submitted an application to respondent No. 2, the Superintending canal Officer, Hissar, requesting that the order of the Minister should be vacated. Respondent No. 2 asked the petitioners to come on 4th of May, 1967 and then again on 10th of May, 1967 On the 10th May, 1967, the respondent No. 2 asked the petitioners "to go home" Presumably, no order appears to have been passed by respondent, No. 2, the Superintending Canal Officer. In this writ petition, the. petitioners' grievance is that the order passed by the Minister (respondent No. 1)was illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. It was also said that this order was passed by him as a political vendetta against the petitioners who helped his opponent Shri Cbaranji Lal at the general elections held in the year 1967. As the petitioners 1 and 2 had opposed respondent No. 1, the latter entertained a grudge against them. On the other hand, respondents Nos. 36 to 39 at whose instance the impugned telegram was sent had helped respondent no. 1 during the general elections. The order passed by the Minister was ex parte, without any jurisdiction, or power, and amounted to an illegal interference with statutory power exercised by the Deputy Collector in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Act.
(3.) AN affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintending Canal Officer, Hissar (respondent No. 2 ). The main plea is that the orders of the Deputy Collector were very clear and "the Irrigation and Power Minister only repeated the orders of the deputy Collector. No orders were thus passed by the Irrigation and Power minister, Haryana Government, as alleged by the petitioners". It was also stated that the decision was taken by the Deputy Collector as per rules. There is a second affidavit filed by Shri Hari Singh Dabra, Irrigation and Power Minister, merely to the effect that the telegram was sent by his predecessor, Shri Mani Ram Gudara, who was the Irrigation and Power Minister.;