Executive Instructions issued by the Chief Engineer for the extra supply of canal water to gardens and orchards, though not framed under any statutory provision, have the force of law as they supplement the existing rules, fill the gaps, and provide a uniform practice. Non-compliance with these instructions is justiciable.

PREM CHAND JAIN, J.

1. Bant Singh and others have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the orders of the Deputy Collector, Abohar, Divisional Canal Officer, and the Superintending Canal Officer, dated 19.02.1970, 30.07.1970, and 9.02.1971 (copies Annexures B , C and E to the petition respectively), and also the order of the Superintending Engineer, dated 6th November, 1969 which had been approved earlier by the Chief Engineer, on 27th October, 1969, as contained in Annexure A to the petition. The facts of this case as given in the petition may briefly be stated thus:-

2. The petitioners and respondents 1 to 3 are co-sharers in outlet at RD No. 31970/Tail Right. This outlet is on Khunan Minor which is 7 miles in length. Formerly the irrigation at Khunan Minor was 40% and later it was raised to 60%. Under the new scheme which has now been sanctioned, the irrigation has to be raised to 90% by remodelling the channel, that is, the Khunan Minor. Its banks will be raised 2 1/2% feet and its bed will also be widened to draw 50% more water. This remodelling of the outlet has not been done so far.

3. It is further stated that Bant Singh, petitioner No. 1, applied for enhanced supply for seven acres of his garden area on 23rd January, 1965. The case was duly examined by the Horticulture Department and the Canal Department and was recommended by the authorities for enhanced supply to the Superintending Canal Officer within six months. The Superintending Canal Officer kept the case pending and told Bant Singh, petitioner No. 1, that till the Khunan Minor was remodelled, enhanced supply of water could not be sanctioned for a garden which was at the tail.

4. It is further stated that Man Singh, respondent No. 1, applied for enhanced supply of water for his 10 acres of garden area, while Atma Singh and Nachhattar Singh sons of Man Singh applied for enhanced supply of water for 5 acres of garden area on 24th March, 1966. The petitioner Bant Singh also again applied for sanction of enhanced supply of water for his 7 acres of garden area. All the three cases were again examined by the Horticulture Department and the canal authorities and a recommendation was made that enhanced supply of water should be given to all the three gardens. The Superintending Canal Officer again refused to give enhanced supply of water for any of the gardens saying that a policy had been framed by the Government that enhanced supply should not be given on any outlet which was at the tail unless the tail was remodelled by increasing its supply from the existing 60% to 90%.

5. It is further alleged in the petition that Man Singh, respondent No. 1, is married with the daughter of Jang Singh son of Sunder Singh, resident of Muktsar. Jang Singh is a close friend of Shri Gurmit Singh, M. L. A., who is now a Minister. Shri Kailash Chand, Superintending Canal Officer, was posted at Ferozepur and the Khunan Minor was in his circle. On the asking of Shri Gurmit Singh, Shri Kailash Chand Superintending Canal Officer, recommended enhanced supply of water for the two gardens of respondents 1 to 3 and did not pass any order on the application of petitioner No. 1. On coming to know of the enhanced supply of water to respondents 1 to 3, petitioner No. 1 made several applications to the authorities to sanction enhanced supply of water for his garden also, but did not succeed.

6. It is further alleged that Man Singh, etc., respondents 1 to 3, made an application for amendment of Warabandi at outlet 31970 Tail right distributary, Khunan Minor. The petitioners and other right-holders of village Tarkhanwala opposed the amendment of this Warabandi on the ground that the outlet of the petitioners was at the tail, that remodelling of the minor had not been done, that water was already short and that amendment should not be made. The Deputy Collector, without giving any reasons