1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 67 OF 2004 Dr. R.A. Singh .... Petitioner. vs. The Municipal Council of Ambarnath & Ors. .... Respondents. Mr. P.M. Pradhan for the petitioner. Mr. Raju Morey i/by C.R. Sonawane for Respondent No. 1. Mr. A.S. Rao for Respondent No. 2. Mr. P.P. Chawan i/by M/s. Little & Co. for Respondent No.3. Mr. P.M. Patil, AGP., for Respondent No. 4. Ms. Neeta Karnik for Respondent No. 5. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 19th NOVEMBER, 2008. 2 P.C. . The present petition is filed by the residents of the area known as Javsai Village forming part of Municipal Council of Ambarnath on the ground that no water is being supplied to them and the residents do not have even drinking water for consumption. Various affidavits are filed by the respondents, particularly respondent no. 5 dated 1st October, 2008 wherein they have set out that they have been improving the system from time to time and presently a pipeline of 6” diameter at the cost of Rs. 22 lakhs has been proposed for Jawsai which is under the process of approval. Further two elevated tanks of capacity 1.5 ML each are proposed at Narayannagar to improve water supply in Jawsai and adjoining area, tenders of which have already been invited and are under process of approval. The cost of the tender is about Rs. 160 lakhs. A copy of the abstract of budget estimate of the said work and a map showing the pipe line in Jawsai – Phulenagar is annexed to the said affidavit. 3 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that in view of this development, he is not pressing the petition and seeks to withdraw the same with liberty to approach this Court in the event of the residents of Jawsai facing the same problem in future. We would like to clarify that in the meantime the authorities will continue to supply water to the residents of Jawsai as is being presently done. We would also like to make it clear that the residents who do not pay the amounts towards the water charges should not be supplied water. 3. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. (J.N. PATEL, J.) (S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.) 4