IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 216 OF 2008 MR. ABHAY R. GANTHE ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 2 and 5. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & SANTOSH BORA, JJ. Date:- 19th August, 2008 P.C. 1. The petitoner is aggrieved by an action of respondent No.2 in providing water connection through his property for the benefit of respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner has stated in the petition that the properties have come to the share of the parties in the manner more particularly set out therein. However, the grievance projected is that respondent No.3 applied for releasing water connection to his house situate in Survey No. 10/5 and such an application was made to the Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division I, W.D.III (PHE-N), P.W.D., Government of Goa, Panaji, Goa somewhere in the month of August, 2004. The application sets out certain details and our attention is invited to the documents forwarded by respondent No.3. Further, it is alleged that the water connection is released in favour of respondent No.3 through the property of the petitioner, but without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. 3. The grievance is that respondent No.3 did not obtain any permission or consent of the petitioner to lay the pipeline underneath and across the petitioner's property. The grievance further is that the officials and those incharge of providing water connections have not bothered to visit the site and carry out any inspection in the presence of the petitioner or put him to notice before the permission in favour of respondent No.3 is granted. 4. It appears that the matter was pending before this Court and on 7.7.08, a statement was made by the petitioner's Advocate so also by the learned Government Advocate that a joint inspection would be carried out of the site and a report would be forwarded of such a joint inspection. 5. The inspection report dated 19.8.08 is placed before us along with a map/sketch of the site. 6. After this matter was argued for sometime, the petitioner's Counsel agrees to approach respondent No.2 with an application requesting for his intervention in the matter. The petitioner's Counsel states that the petitoner as well as respondent No.3 can have water connections without any hindrance or obstruction to enjoyment or use of each others property and the petitioner would assist respondent No.3 as well, in that behalf by obtaining no objection/consent of respondent No.4. 7. We have no reason to dispute the fact that after the inspection report is placed before us, which is a subsequent development, the authority concerned would definitely look into the grievance of the petitioner and respondent No.3 and further resolve it to the satisfaction of both of them, so that both are not deprived of use and enjoyment of their respective property, so also essential amenity. 8. Needless to state that the matter being within the domain of the experts who are incharge of implementing the concerned Rules and Regulations, so also providing such an essential amenity, their approach would be such so that the parties do not have any issues further and an amicable solution to the satisfaction of all of them is found with the Authority's intervention and assistance. Needless, therefore, to state that if the petitioner approaches respondent No.2, respondent No.2 shall consider the said application, and if the petitioner fulfills all essential requirements, take appropriate steps to resolve the grievance as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six weeks from the date the petitioner fulfills and satisfies the relevant requirements. Petition disposed off. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SANTOSH BORA, J. ssm.