1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4168 OF 2006 Vishnu s/o Baburao Deshmukh, R/o Nevpur (Khalsa), Tq-Kannad, District-Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Water Supply Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.M.S. Deshmukh Advocate for Petitioner. Smt.Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri. R.N. Dhorde Advocate for Respondent No.7. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 20TH JULY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. The Petitioner's contention is that under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ground Water (Regulation for Drinking Water Purposes) Act, 1993 (for short "the Act of 1993"), the Respondent Sugar Factory was not entitled to use water from a well which is in prohibiting zone from another well situated nearby. This Petition was filed in the year 2006 and it is pending admission since then. Affidavit in reply, rejoinders are filed. 3. Learned counsel Shri Deshmukh appearing for the Petitioner submits that there is complete violation of the provision of the Act of 1993. The Respondent Karkhana is utilizing the water from the well which is affecting the water sources of village Navpur(Khalsa), Nevpur(Jahagir) and Chincholi(Limbaji). The counsel submits that the geologist's report also favours the Petitioner and therefore the Respondent Karkhana be prevented from utilizing said water sources. 4. Shri. Dhorde, learned counsel appearing 3 for the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner has not approached this Court with fairness. It is the contention of the Respondent that the Petitioner wanted that his land to be purchased by the Respondent Karkhana which the Karkhana refused and therefore the Petitioner filed the Petition. Reliance was placed on a certificate issued by a Sarpancha of the village Panchayat giving no objection for utilizing water from the said well. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.7 submits that Karkhana is running since last more than 8 to 9 years and there are enough water sources available for village and Sarpanch of Grampanchayat has given no objection for utilization of the water. 6. The Petition was filed in the year 2006. We find that the situation has to be considered from the present status in respect of the water sources in the village. If the Petitioner still 4 wants to raise the issue in respect of the present scenario of water source available in the village, he can make comprehensive representative to the responsible Authorities. The Authorities have to take overall view of the water sources, convenience of the parties and thereafter issue appropriate instructions to the concerned. 7. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JULY10/wp4168.06