1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION P.I.L. NO. 108 OF 2005 Appasaheb B. Patil & Anr. .. Petitioners. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondent. Mr. M.A. Patil for the petitioners. Mrs. J.S. Pawar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondents. CORAM : J.N. PATEL & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 17TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. : The learned counsel for the parties. This public interest litigation came to be filed by the petitioners who are residents of Sangola Taluka praying that the respondents should be given direction to release water from Nira Right Bank Canal to Sangola Chincholi Lake and other two dams. This is the second round of litigation on the same subject 2 matter which was agitated by PIL No. 91 of 2005 and in that PIL No. 91 of 2005 the order dated 6.7.2005 the petitioners were permitted to make representation to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Solapur. But it appears that as it did not fulfill the expectation of the petitioners, particularly the requirement of water to Sangola Taluka, the petitioners issued fresh notice to the authorities and again moved this PIL that their representation has not been properly dealt with in the matter. On 4.10.2005, the Bench presided over by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice allowed the petitioners to withdraw the petition and approach the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Maharashtra, or the Executive Director, Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation in the matter and the petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn. 2. It appears that thereafter also the petitioners were not satisfied and took out Civil Application No. 37 of 2006 substantially reopening the issue. In response to the application, Mr. Deepak Apparao Pandhare, Executive Engineer, Neera Right Bank Canal Division, Phaltan, Dist. Satara has filed an affidavit in reply and he has specifically stated that the matter has been dealt wit by the department and the reply has been given by the office of the Chief Engineer, Water Resourced Department, Pune vide office letter no. 5477 dated 13.9.2005 and was handed over to the office of the Advocate Machhindra Patil on 19.9.2005 and that the State has considered the grievances of the petitioners and found that the 3 petitioners seek release of water to the two canals through which Sangola Taluka gets water supply. It has been found that even when water is spilling over Veer Dam there are limitations to draw water from Veer Dam through NRBC which depends on discharging capacity of Canal which was assessed as 1550 Cusecs which is just sufficient in order to meet the present demands from various quarters in the command area of NRBC as per the set priorities. 3. The authorities even specifically stated that as per the policy decision the parties are first to fulfill the irrigation requirement of standing or seasonal crops and second feeding of Tisangi tail tank during over flow period of Veer Dam. In the affidavit in reply copy of which was already furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the authorities have spelt out the storage capacities of Bhatghar and Veer Dam and how the waters from these dams are being utilised. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners except for insisting that the canals leading to Sangola Taluka should be given additional supply of water, he is not able to place before us any material to show as to how Sangola Taluka deserves to get priority over others and contrary to the policy decision taken by the State. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we do not find that the State has any adverse interest in not allocating additional water in proportion to Sangola Taluka. 4 5. We are, therefore, of the view that it will not be possible for this Court to issue any specific directions which may disturb the allocation of water supply from the dam through various canals in the region. We find no reason why this court should issue any writ of mandamus, order or direction to the authorities to supply water to Sangola Taluka in preference to the need and necessity of other areas in the region as per government policy. Therefore, we are not inclined to pass any orders in the matter. The civil application is filed. (J.N. PATEL, J.) (SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)