SARDAR MUHAMMAD and others vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld the refusal of lower courts to grant an interim injunction in a civil suit. The petitioners, canal water users, had repeatedly challenged the sanctioning of extra water to other respondents through various legal avenues, including writ petitions and an Intra Court Appeal, all of which were unsuccessful. In their subsequent declaratory suit challenging the Canal Officer's order, they sought an interim injunction. The High Court dismissed their revision in limine, finding that the petitioners' water share had not been reduced and that the lower courts' refusal to grant the injunction was neither improper nor illegal. The Supreme Court, upon review, found no grounds for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that where a party fails to demonstrate a prima facie case of injury or reduction in rights, the refusal of an interim injunction by lower courts is legally sustainable and does not warrant interference in revision.
- Can a party repeatedly challenge the same administrative order through successive litigation after previous challenges have failed?
- Is the refusal of an interim injunction by lower courts subject to interference in revision when the petitioner fails to show a reduction in their rights?
- Does the dismissal of a writ petition regarding water rights preclude a subsequent declaratory suit challenging the same administrative order?
ORDER
' M . S . H . QURAISHI, J.-- This petition is directed against the refusal to grant an interim injunction by the Courts below in the petitioner's suit. The petitioners who are recipients of canal water in Chak No,517/G.B, Toba Tek Singh, had by a writ petition agitated against sanction of extra water to the orchards of respondents 3 to 24. The petition was disposed of as the Departmental Officer conceded that the requirement of law had not been observed. A fresh order was accordingly passed by the Canal Officer on 4-1-1981 sanctioning the water-supply to the respondents which, too, was challenged by another writ petition and when the same failed, the petitioners filed an Intra Court Appeal. That, too, was dismissed on 30-9-1981. They then moved this Court through Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 1010 of 1981, but the same also was dismissed on 8-12-1981. They started a third round by instituting a declaratory suit to challenge the same order of the Canal Officer, dated 4-1-1981. In the suit they applied for grant of an injunction.
Having failed before the trial Court and the first appellate Court they came in revision before the High Court but the same too was dismissed in limine. The learned Judge of the High Court held that prima facie the petitioners' share of water not having been reduced, the refusal to grant injunction by the two Courts below was not improper or illegal.
2. After hearing learned counsel, we find no case for interference.
' The petition is, therefore, dismissed.