SHETHNA, J. - (1.) AT times, hue and cry is raised and questions are raised about the back log of cases pending in the courts. There are many reasons for it, one of the main reasons is the total apathy and the rigid attitude of higher officers of Govt. itself. This case is the best example of it. This is the second round of litigation between the parties. There are as many as 83 petitioners, who are forced to file this petition before this Court once again though earlier writ petition no. 2930/95 was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court way back on 8. 11. 1995 by directing the authority to take fresh decision after hearing them but they are once again at square one.
(2.) IN earlier writ petition, only one contention was raised by learned counsel Shri Sharma that their right, title or interest stood vitally affected by the impugned order passed by the authority below inasmuch as they were not heard. Thus, the impugned order passed by the authority was in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, liable to be set aside. That contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was objected by the learned counsel for respondents by submitting that mere presence of petitioners before the Chief Engineer was enough and that amounts to hearing and after hearing them the order was passed by the authorities. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge observed that, ``from the impugned order I do not find that application was at all dealt with or the petitioners were formally impleaded as party and were heard. '' Under the aforesaid circumstances, learned Single Judge of this Court found the grievance of the petitioners as genuine, therefore, directed the Chief Engineer, ``to extend the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and then decide their application IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY A SPEAKING ORDER. '' In pursuance of the order and directions issued by this Court, once again the then Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Hanumangarh Junction decided the case by an impugned order dated 12. 4. 1996 (Annex. 8), which is challenged in this petition by the petitioners. It runs into 32 type pages which would give prima facie impression that a very well written order is passed by the Chief Engineer, but going through the entire order it clearly appears that the impugned order is a non speaking order. First three pages of the order consist of only names of the parties and remaining 29 pages of the order is a mere re-production of the submissions of respective parties before the Chief Engineer. Last line of the order is that ``the order is pronounced in the open Court''. And last but one para of his order runs into only six lines, whereby, the Chief Engineer decided the matter against the petitioners. The said para is re- produced as under:- Nksuksa i{kksa ds ,oe~ u;s cuk;s x;s i{kdkjksa ds odhy }kjk mpp U;k;ky; ds fu. kz; vuqlkj fnukad 2-4-96 dks dh xbz cgl dks lquus ij o i=koyh dk xgu v/;;u djus ij ik;k x;k fd bl U;k;ky; }kjk iwoz esa fnukad 25-8-95 ds }kjk fn;k x;k fu. kz; rduhdh ,oe~ vpnh flapkbz ds fgr esa gs tks fd mfpr izrhr gksrk gs dks cgky j[ks tkus dk fu. kz; fd;k tkrk gsa**
(3.) THUS, it clear appears from the list but one para of the impugned order that the Chief Engineer heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as per the order of this Court on 12. 4. 1996 but disposed of an appeal in a most arbitrary manner by observing that, ``considering the record of the case in detail it appears that the earlier order dated 25. 8. 1995 passed by him was in the interest of better technical irrigation, which is found to be proper, therefore, it is decided to upheld the same. '' Prima facie, I am of the opinion that it is a case of gross contempt of the earlier order passed by this Court on 8. 11. 1995 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2930/95, because he tried to circumvent the order passed by him in this manner. While deciding the case he should have kept in mind the fact that his earlier order was set aside by this Court on 8. 11. 1995. It appears that he was not able to swallow the fact that his earlier order was set aside by this court on 8. 11. 1995, but being a subordinate authority he had no alternative but to hear the parties and then to pass order,therefore, he completed the formalities of hearing, but sticked to his earlier order passed by him by mere re- production of the contentions and brush aside the same by observing that, ``on detail study of the record it appears that the earlier order passed by him on 25. 8. 1995 was in the interest of better technical irrigation''. Thus, without assigning any reasons that as to why the contentions raised by the petitioners before him were required to be rejected, be discussed the matter. Not only that the earlier order passed by him, which was set aside by this Court, was upheld by him in his subsequent impugned order `annex. 8'. Thus, an attempt is made by a subordinate authority to show that he is superior to this Court. This type of attitude of the authorities leads to back log of cases pending in the courts which are in thousands. Not only that, it results into wastage of not only public money but valuable time of this Court. The present petition alongwith annexures runs into in all 139 pages, then there is reply of the private respondents with annexures and reply of respondent nos. 1 to 5 running into several pages and making the record of the case almost about 200 pages. This has unnecessary consu- med valuable time of this Court and because of this case the Court was unable to take up other genuine cases, which are pending before this Court since number of years. ;