1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The dispute : between the parties relates to the rate of canal water supplied to the respondent for con--struction of certain public works. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court while accepting the writ petition of the respondent has observed as follows :- "There can be no doubt as to the existence of a written agreement between the parties in which the Provincial Govern--ment had agreed to supply canal water to the petitioner for construction purposes at the rate of Rs. 3 per 10,000 c. Ft. In terms of rule 11 of the Canal and Drainage Rules the contract was to be signed by the Divisional Canal Officer with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government, as the period of the contract exceeded one year. After some initial correspondence, the sanction of the Provincial Government was conveyed to the Executive Engineer on the 21st of August 1963 by means of Letter No. 11/9-S-O (Rev.)/62 from the Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, in the Irrigation and Power Department to the Chief Engineer, Sargodha Zone, Lyallpur. On the receipt of this letter the Executive Engineer concerned wrote to the petitioner to sign the agreement,, which was duly completed on the 23rd of August 1963. According to sub-rule (2) of rule 10 of the West Pakistan Government Rules of Business of 1962 the Irrigation Secretary was competent to sign the order conveying the sanction of the Provincial Government.
2. The Executive Engineer as well as the petitioner-firm therefore rightly acted on the assumption that the sanction of the Provincial Government had been duly accorded to the agreed rate. This agreement was acted upon by the parties inasmuch as water was supplied by the Irrigation Department at the agreed rate, and the price was duly paid by the petitioner-firm. In these circumstances it is not open to the Provincial Government to reopen the matter after nearly two years."
3. Furthermore, there was no affidavit on behalf of the Irriga--petition Secretary that he had failed to obtain the necessary sanction as required under rule 15 of the Rules of Business.
4. Our attention was drawn to the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioners in the writ proceedings showing that there was no such sanction. The statement is not supported by any affidavit.
5. There is no substance in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.