1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 2608 of 2009 Vitthal and ors v. The State of Maharashtra and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr Amol Deshpande, Adv for petitioners Mr A.B. Patil, Adv for respdt no.2 Mr A.S. Fulzele, AGP for respdts 3 and 8 Coram: D.D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 28th January 2011 1. Heard Mr Amol Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr A.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Mr A.S. Fulzele, learned AGP for respondents no. 3 to 8. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are agriculturists and residents of village Jaipur and Zodga, Tahsil and District Washim. This petition pertains to proposed construction of Irrigation Dam near Jaipur and Zodga villages. Grievance of the petitioners was that the petitioners and others are totally dependent upon agricultural lands which come under the submergence area of the proposed Irrigation Dam. The petitioners had approached this Court by filing present writ petition at the time when the advertisement was issued calling tenders for construction of the said Dam. 2 3. In paraghraph 10 of the affidavit dated 18th August 2009 it is stated on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 6 thus : “The contents of this paragraph are denied in toto. It is specifically stated that the project is very much in the interest of the farmers and is also feasible for irrigation. It is specifically submitted that the project is as per the norms, rules and regulations of Water Resources Department of Minor Irrigation Project, hence approved by the respondent no. 2 vide its letter dated 07.11.2008. The project is considered to be important to eradicate irrigation backlog of Washim District as per the Hon’ble Governor’s directives. The benefit cost ratio of the project is 1.46 which is well above the prescribed norms of 1.0, as per practice of Water Resources Department. The project is certainly feasible and the water will be provided to the farmers as assured supply for seasonal crops. The water is also reserved for drinking purposes throughout the year. The living standards of the farmers and users will certainly get enhanced. The project is totally in the interest of the society and hence the say of the petitioners is denied.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view 3 of the statement made on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 6 in affidavit, grievance of the petitioners does not survive. Consequently, writ petition disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE joshi