Basant Singh vs Superintending Canal Officer

S.S. Sodhi, J.(Oral)

The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Superintendent Canal Officer of April 2, 1976 (Annexure P.2) on the ground that no appeal was competent under the relevant provisions of Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the impugned order was consequently void.

A scheme for irrigation had been prepared under section 30A of the Act. The Divisional Canal Officer after considering the objections raised with regard thereto rejected it by his order of January 20, 1976 (Annexure P1). On appeal the Superintending Canal Officer by his impugned order set aside the order of the Divisional Canal Officer and approved the scheme referred to above.

It was the contention of Mr. J.R. Mittal, counsel for the petitioner that while the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 30B of the Act no doubt provided for an appeal to the Superintending Canal Officer, this right conferred upon the petitioner was not one which could be exercised as the period prescribed for the filing of such an appeal was 30 days from the date of the publication of the rejection of the scheme under section 30C of the Act. The argument being that as there was no provision in section 30C of the Act for the publication of the scheme which had been rejected under section 30B of the Act, no appeal could be filed. A reference to the relevant provision of the Act as it now stands would show that the proviso to section 30C of the Act which was incorporated in the Act much earlier than the orders passed in this case, clearly provides for the publication of even a rejected scheme. No ground thus survives to question the maintainability of the appeal or the jurisdiction of the Superintending Canal Officer to deal with it. Mr. J.R. Mittal next sought to contend that the impugned order could not be sustained for the reason that it did not specifically meet and repel all the reasons set out by the Divisional Canal Officer in rejecting the scheme. The argument being that in the absence thereof the order of the Superintending Canal Officer could not be said to be a speaking order. Particular emphasis was here placed upon the ratio of irrigation of the land concerned adverted to by the Divisional Canal Officer in his order. The authority upon which this contention was founded upon was Bhajan Singh and others v. Superintending Canal Officer and others, 1970 P.L.J. 1. After stating the contentions of the appellant the order passed by the Superintending Canal Officer was in the following terms :

"Both the parties have been heard. It is clear from the plan that the Khal L.N. is unnecessary. As such this part of the Khal is eliminated. The decision was announced to both the parties".

It was held that the order stood vitiated as it did not disclose any reasons for the conclusion arrived at. On the face of it the authority cited above is distinguishable from the facts of the present case as a reference to the impugned order of the Superintending Canal Officer would show that it is a well reasoned order setting out ample grounds in justification for the conclusion arrived at.

In dealing with the contention raised it would be relevant to advert to the observations of the Supreme Court regarding what is a speaking order in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and others, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 671, where it was stated "when we insist upon reasons, we do not prescribe any particular form or scale of the reasons, the extent and the nature of the reasons depend upon each case. Ordinarily, the appellate or revisional tribunal shall give its own reasons succinctly; but in the case of affirmance where the original tribunal gives adequate reasons, the appellate Tribunal may dismiss the appeal or the revision as the case may be, agreeing with those reasons, what is essential is that reasons shall be given by an appellate or revisional tribunal expressly or by reference, to those given by the original tribunal. The nature and the elaboration of the reasons necessarily depend upon the facts of each case."

The reasons set out by the Superintending Canal Officer in the impugned order clearly meet the test set out in the observations above. The impugned order thus warrants no interference in writ proceedings. This writ petition is hereby dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.