ABDUL MAJEED Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition challenging an administrative decision by a Superintending Engineer. The petitioner had filed a civil suit contesting the legality of an order permitting a respondent to share an irrigation outlet previously used exclusively by the petitioner. Alongside the suit, the petitioner sought interim relief to suspend the Superintending Engineer's order. The trial court dismissed the application for interim relief, finding that the existing water supply was sufficient for both parties, thereby concluding that the petitioner would not suffer irreparable loss or inconvenience. This finding was upheld by the Additional District Judge on appeal and subsequently by the High Court in revision. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to displace the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts regarding the sufficiency of water and the lack of irreparable harm. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
- Does the sufficiency of water supply preclude a finding of irreparable loss in a suit challenging an irrigation outlet sharing order?
- Can a petitioner obtain interim relief against an administrative order if they cannot demonstrate irreparable loss or inconvenience?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. ‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 1‑12‑1980 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed civil suit to call in question the legality of the order of a Superintending Engineer whereby he permitted the respondent to share an outlet from which the petitioner received water for irrigating their land. He also applied for the suspension of the order of the Superintending Engineer during the pendency of the suit. The application for interim relief was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the water flowing through the outlet was sufficient to meet the needs of both the parties and as such the petitioner was not likely to suffer irreparable loss or incur inconvenience in the event that order of the Superintending Engineer was not suspended. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge but without any success and his revision petition before the High Court also remained unsuccessful.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He ha not been able to displace the findings of the subordinate Courts. Leave is refused.
M.I./A‑214/S Petition dismissed.