CWP No. 620 of 2005. 22.05.2008 Present: Mr. S.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dev Raj Dev, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate, for respondent No.2. The petitioners have approached this Court on the ground that they had feeling that they will not get the required water for their living, to live their livelihood and run their business. This Court had constituted a Committee which examined the matter from all possible angles and submitted its report. Mr. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate on 12th December, 2006 agreed with the report of the Committee. However, he had certain reservations and in continuation to the said reservations certain objections had been filed by Mr. Mittal. How much water is required by the petitioners is a technical matter which can be examined by the Technocrats of the Government, i.e. Engineers of the Irrigation Department. While considering the matter the authorities shall take into consideration the report of the Agriculture and Horticulture Departments as well. We further provide that while the authorities are examining the requirement of the water by the residents they may take into consideration the objections filed on behalf of the petitioners. We hope and trust that the above exercise would be done within a period of six months. The Company may also approach the authorities to place their case. However, till the matter is decided, as per recommendations of the Committee, minimum water should be supplied to the petitioners-residents. With these observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. May 22, 2008. ( Rajiv Sharma ), J. (rc)