TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J. -- This order shall dispose of W.P. 4148-96,W.P. 15143-96, 15798-95, 15799-95, 12892-95 and 12451-98 as in all of them common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. Facts briefly for the disposal of these Constitutional petitions are that respondents in all these cases are having water sanctioned for their fish farms. Exception is taken in all these Constitutional petitions to a Notification bearing No. SO(REV)(I&P)12-68/95, dated 27.7.1995 issued by the Secretary, Government of Punjab Irrigation and Power Department directing the Chief Engineers Irrigation of different districts to supply water to the fish farms sanctioned before 13.10.1988 at the old rates of 0.4 Cusic per acre and 0.04 Cusic per acre to the fish farms sanctioned after 13.10.1988.
3. Argument has been advanced that most of the sanctioned fish farms are only on the papers simply to get enhanced water which the respondents are selling in an illegal manner. A further argument has been advanced that the impugned notification has reduced the supply of the petitioners.
4. The learned Law Officer as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents have opposed the stance taken by the petitioner.
5. I have considered the contentions. 1 have noticed that through an interim order dated 24.10.1995 Mr. Zahid A.I Executive Engineer was directed to visit personally the spot and submit report regarding the existence and otherwise a the sanctioned fish farms. He submitted his report and supported the stance taken by the petitioner that at the spot most of the fish farms did not exist at all.
6. However, Mr. Fouzi Zafar learned AAJ as well as learned counsel for the respondents have made stance to letter No. 1915/188/M, dated 1.4.1996 of S.E. Of Lower Chenab Canal Circle, Faisalabad wherein on a complaint filed by respondent A.I Muhammad in writ petition No. 4148-96, the S.E.
Himself alongwith SDO visited the spot and found that fish farms are functioning at the spot. This aspect shows that the Executive Engineer submitted the report on which learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance without associating the affected persons. I do not want to dilate much on this issue as this exercise may prejudice the case of either party. The existence of otherwise of the fish farms is a disputed question of fact entailing an enquiry which I am afraid cannot be undertaken in the exercise of my Constitutional jurisdiction.
7. As far as the quantum of water to the fish farms sanctioned prior to 13.10.1988 through notification dated 27.7.1995 is concerned, the petitioner's have got no locus standi to challenge the same as none of their vested rights has been infringed by the same. Further, no order detrimental to their interest has been passed. Apart from this a right accrued to the respondents cannot be retrospectively taken through notification without giving them opportunity of hearing. In these circumstances, if the petitioners are aggrieved they should either approach the Superintending Engineer Power Chenab, Circle Faisalabad or the Civil Court of plenary jurisdiction for the redressal of their grievance. Writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.