1. The contention of the petitioners' counsel is that by reason of construction of link channel and Head Regulator at R.D. 52.7 of Nau Lakhi Canal in persuance of the letter, dated 18-6-1987, out of 9454 acres, previously irrigated by Mehrab Wah, about 6,000 acres of land including those of the petitioners, have become uncultivable due to short supply of water. According to him, with the efforts of affected cultivators the Government, by letter dated 7-3-1990, issued fresh direction to respondent No.2, in supersession of its earlier direction contained in the aforesaid letter, dated 18- 6-1987, directing the closure of the said link channel and Head Regulator at R.D.52.7 and construction of new Head Regulator at R.D.34 on left side of Naulakhi Branch, but respondent No.2 failed to give effect to that direction. By this petition the petitioners seek the implementation of Government's order dated 7-3-1990.
2. The A.A.-G. On the other hand denies the allegation that construction of channel and Head Regulator at R.D.52.7 has rendered 6,000 acres uncultivable. He submits that far from reducing the area of irrigated land the project has increased its acreage and has been of such benefit to the cultivators that when they learnt of the revised scheme envisaged in letter dated 7-3-1990 some of them filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Gambat, to stop its implementation. He submits that for the present there are no funds available for the project. , It is true that the letter dated 7-3-1990 spells out the scheme to instal Head Regulator at R.D.34 but the Government was competent to revise the scheme later depending on the feasibility of the project, its advantages and disadvantages, availability of resources etc. Cumulation and implementation of such projects falls within the competence of the Government and interference of this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction is neither called for nor possible. Another reason why this Constitution petition must fail is that the controversy involved depends wholly on determination of difficult questions of fact which cannot be gone into in this petition.
3. For the foregoing reasons, we consider that the petition has no merit and accordingly dismiss the same in limine.