THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.4927 OF 2010 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the respondents in constructing a new aqueduct on Kapavaram Supply Channel and diverting the Supply Channel through Survey Nos.56, 57 and 71 of Paremella Village as arbitrary, illegal and void and to consequently direct the respondents to renovate the existing aqueduct and the drainage. The petitioners are farmers. The existing aqueduct near Paremella Village caters to the agricultural and drinking water needs of villages in Nidamarru Mandal. There is a drainage channel which takes water from the fields of several villages and joins the Uppeteru. As the drainage channel was not maintained properly, wild weeds had grown therein obstructing the free flow of drain water. The petitioners would contend that, if the drains were cleared of the weeds, there would no more be a problem for smooth flow of drain water and, even otherwise, if more vents were required under the channel they could be provided at minimum cost. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in seeking to construct a new aquaduct on the lower side of the existing aqueduct by diverting the irrigation canal on the left side into the new aqueduct and thereafter to again join it to the existing channel. It is the petitioners’ case that the proposed project, of construction of a new aquaduct, would involve heavy expenditure including the huge cost of acquisition of land. They would rely on a report of a retired Executive Engineer in support of their submission that construction of a new aquaduct would cost Rs.1.6 crores in addition to the cost of land acquisition; and it was more economical for the existing aqueduct to be utilized after carrying out improvements therein instead of constructing a new aquaduct at a very high cost. This Court lacks the expertise required to determine technical questions as to whether it is more economically beneficial to construct a new aquaduct or to repair the existing aquaduct; whether the proposed supply channel should be diverted from the existing route etc., Even otherwise these are all matters in the executive realm and are not matters for adjudication in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as this Court would neither weigh the pros and cons of the two alternative proposals nor would it sit in judgment over the wisdom of the executive in such matters. It is not the petitioner’s case that the proposed construction of a new aqueduct, and diversion of the existing drainage channel, is in violation of any statutory provision or rule. Matters of executive policy, save a clear case of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India being made out, are, ordinarily, not amenable to judicial review. The relief sought for in this Writ Petition, to declare the action of the respondents in constructing a new aqueduct as arbitrary and illegal, cannot therefore be granted. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 4th March 2010 RRB/ASP