1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6625/2009 Village Level Water & Sanitation Committee & ors versus The State of Rajasthan & ors 16.12.2010 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr HK Saini - for petitioner Mr Chetan Bairwa, Dy GC – for respondents BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2009 at Annexure- 9 this writ petition has been filed. Petitioners' main grievance is that while a new tube well was dug it is not connected with the bigger tank rather it is connected with the small tank to benefit 15-20 families only. Earlier writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.1.2009 with direction to the respondents to decide representation of the petitioners within one month of its filing. The respondent No.2 has passed the order dated 23.3.2009, which is under challenge. According to petitioners, effort of the respondents is to benefit few families by the newly dug tube well whereas it 2 should have been connected with the bigger tank so that every villager could have benefited by proper supply of drinking water. Other than aforesaid, no other ground has been raised by the learned counsel for petitioners. Learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioners and others are getting regular drinking water. Grievance so raised by the petitioners is nothing but inter se rivalry within village, may be, due to political reasons. The impugned order has been passed after considering all the aspects of the matter and also that new tube well is situated one and half kilo-meter away from the bigger tank and, in absence of budget, it was not possible to connect it. When the petitioners are getting regular drinking water, their grievance against others cannot be said to be bona fide. I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and have perused the impugned order. Perusal of the order shows that for supply of drinking water from time to time respondents have passed orders. Initially, in the year 2004, a sum of Rs.9 lacs were sanctioned. Tank was constructed and thereupon started. In the year 2006, another tube 3 well was constructed looking to the scarcity of water. The distribution of water was mainly made by the bigger tank. Unfortunately, in the year 2007 ground water level of one area dried causing great scarcity of drinking water in that area. Accordingly, in the year 2008 itself a decision was taken to dig another tube well so that area affected on account of scarcity of water may be supplied with drinking water. The construction of new tube well was for that reason. However, it has become issue for grievance by the petitioners as their houses are connected with the bigger tank. The grievance aforesaid cannot be said to be genuine inasmuch as petitioners have not urged before me that there is scarcity of water to them. In any case, it is made open by the petitioners that if they get any problem in regard to drinking water they would be at liberty to take up the matter again before the appropriate authorities, who are then expected to look into the issue and redress the grievance, if it is raised. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. (MN Bhandari) J. bnsharma