Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 30.3.1996 (Annexure 1) passed by the Executive Engineer and the appellate order dated 29.9.96 (Annexure 2) passed by the Superintending Engineer, Hanumangarh Junction on the ground that the statutory authorities have passed the orders without any application of mind and on the ins- tructions of the respondent No. 4, the Honble Minister for Irrigation.

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondents No. 5 to 9 filed an application before the respondent No. 3 for transfer of their land. On the said application, no notice was served upon petitioners and the impugned order dated 30.3.96, contained in Annexure 1 to the petition, was passed. Being ag- grieved and dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred by petitioners before respondent No. 2, which had, also, been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.9.96, contained in Annexure 2 to this petition. Hence this petition.

(3). Mr. Kharlia, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was a case under the provisions of Section 20 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as ``the Act) and the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred as ``the Rules) and the impugned order could not have been passed by the respondent No. 3 without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioners. His allegation is that it is evident from the impugned order itself that the said order had been passed on the instructions of the respon- dent No. 4, the then Honble Minister for Irrigation. This Court heard the matter on 10.10.96 and insisted that if allegations of malafide are urged against the Honble Minister for Irrigation then he had to be impleaded by name. Petitioners impleaded the Honble Minister for Irrigation by name and inspite of service, he has chosen not to enter appearance. However, Mr. B.N. Calla, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 to 9 submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court in Jernail Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Ors. (1), this Court should not interfere in the matter requiring specialised knowledge about the functioning of irregation system as the impugned orders had been passed by the experts in the subject. Similar view had been taken by this Court in Laxman & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2), and, thus, he submits that this case does not warrant any interference by this Court. Similar view had been taken earlier by this Court in Sheetal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (3).

(4). There can be no dispute regarding the proposition put forward by Mr. Calla as the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court has laid down the same proposition of law in University of Mysore vs. Govind Rao & Anr. (4), The Chancellor & Anr. vs. Dr. Bijayanandan Kar (5); and Central Areca Nut & Cocoa Marketing and Processing Cooperative Society vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (6). However, the said proposition is not applicable here for the reason that the allegations of malafide had been alleged against the respondent No. 4 and it is submitted by Mr. Kharlia that the order has been passed at the behest of the Honble Minister for Irrigation. Impugned order, contained in Annexure 1, gives an impressions that the said order had been passed at the behest of the Honble Minister and even the appellate Court has not dealt- with the grievances raised by the present petitioners on that ground.

(5). Mr. Kharlia has submitted that every statutory body is supposed to apply its mind and take a decision according to the facts and circumstances and the superior authority, however higher it may be, cannot dictate the terms to a statutory Authority. In order to fortify his submissions, Mr. Kharlia has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anirudhsinhji Karan Sinhji Jadeja & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (7). The Apex Court has taken the similar view in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document