1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.754/2006 Surya Prakash and ors. V/s The State of Raj. & ors. Date of Order::- 4th December,2009 PRESENT Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr.Justice Prakash Tatia Mr.Chaitanya Gehlot for the petitioners. Mr.M.S.Singhvi ) Mr.R.L.Jangid,Addl.Advocate General )for respondents. ORDER BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Chief Justice Jagdish Bhalla) Learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Chaitanya Gehlot restricted his prayer to the extent that sufficient arrangements be made for the drinking water by providing water huts. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents was asked to obtain instructions in the matter and thereafter, response was filed on behalf of the respondents giving the details of the arrangements made by them. However, learned counsel for the petitioners was not satisfied with the arrangements already being made by the private respondents. In the circumstances, it has been argued that there is no water arrangements in the market area for the shop-keepers and the public, who come for shopping and therefore, it was prayed that necessary directions be issued in this connection inspite of the arrangements already made by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners on 27th October, 2009 had prayed and allowed ten days' time to submit his written arguments. However, no such written arguments were furnished. 2 In the background of the case that the learned counsel for the petitioners has restricted his prayer only for the arrangements of the drinking water through water huts, we find that as far as the private respondents are concerned, they have already made sufficient arrangements and now it is the turn of the public spirited persons like the petitioners and shop- keepers to do the rest, if need be, as it will result into benefit of not only the shop-keepers, but also those, who come for shopping. We further find that certain reliefs were granted in public interest by way of interim orders, which have attained finality. Thus, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Prakash Tatia)J. (Jagdish Bhalla)C.J. Parmar