1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO.4038 OF 2009 Sainath s/o. Ramaswamy Chinnadore - - Petitioner versus Union of India and others. - - Respondents Shri Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate i/by Shri H.A. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union of India- Respondent No. 1. Shri Umakant Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.2. Shri D. P. Bakshi, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Shri V. J. Dixit, Senior Advocate i/by Shri H.K. Munde, Advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 2nd July 2009 ORAL ORDER [ Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] 1. In substance, grievance of learned Counsel Shri Pradeep Deshmukh is that the sanctioned project of water supply scheme from Jayakwadi to Jalna was executed from Jayakwadi-Ambad-Jalna route. 2 Under a Resolution passed by Muncipal Council, Jalna on 8-5-2009, the Municipal Council resolved to change the said route of laying down of the pipeline. Under the new route the project was to be executed from Jayakwadi, Pachod, Jambuwant Tekdi, Kimgaon and Dongargaon Marg - survey No.488. Another grievance of the Counsel as per instructions seems to be that under the tender notice, the work of construction of employees residences is not an approved subject under the sanctioned project. Some other contentions were also raised by the Counsel for the petitioner including non publication of tender notice in the State in largely circulated daily newspapers. Additional affidavit in reply is also filed by the petitioner today. Affidavit in reply is filed by Respondent No.3 Deepak Pujari, Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Jalna. 2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Shri V. J. Dixit instructed by Shri Mundhe for Municipal Council, Shri Alok Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1, Shri Umakant Patil, learned A.G.P. for Respondent No.2 and Shri D.P. Bakshi for Respondent No.4. 3. Learned Counsel Shri Bakshi, on instructions of the responsible officer present in the Court, stated that the subject project sanctioned by the respective agency was to be implemented from Jayakwadi-Ambad- Jalna. As regards the proposed change, respondent No.4 Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran has not submitted any final project or report though some initial consultation was made by Municipal Council with the Respondent No.4. Learned A.G.P. Shri Umakant Patil, on written 3 instructions of State Government i. e. the Director, Municipal Administration, Mumbai dated 1-7-2009 which was handed over to learned A.G.P. by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council present in Court submits that the sanctioned project was to proceed from Jayakwadi, Ambad, Jalna. Director, Municipal Administration is nodal agency under the scheme. According to learned A.G.P. Shri Umakant Patil, the Director has not received any amended scheme or project than the one which was earlier sanctioned for Jalna city. 4. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Dixit on instructions of Mr. Deepak Poojari, Chief Officer of Municipal Council and Shri K. M. Sandry, Deputy Engineer, Municipal Council, Jalna, makes a statement that the Jalna Municipal Council would proceed with the implementation of the project as per the project which was sanctioned i.e. from Jayakwadi-Ambad-Jalna route. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the tender notice was approved by nodal agency i. e. Director, Municipal Administration. It was urged by learned Senior Counsel that in case in future any deviation from the originally sanctioned scheme or project is necessitated, appropriate approval would be obtained from the required agencies including the nodal agency. 5. We are informed that under this project, 80 per cent of the project cost is borne by the Central Government, 10 per cent by the State Government and remaining 10 per cent by Jalna Municipal Council. 4 6. We have perused the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 4439 of 2008 and the orders passed by us from time to time. Adequate supply of water to the citizens is essential need of the day. Therefore, the project of this nature shall be implemented with accurate efficiency and complete fairness and transparency so that project is completed within the given time frame which would avoid escalation of costs. As large amount of public money is involved in the scheme, it is duty of all concerned agencies involved in execution of the project to oversee and supervise that the project is implemented efficiently and expeditiously. We have viewed this matter accordingly. The subsidiary issues relating to practical execution of the project shall be brought to the notice of nodal agency i. e. the Director of Municipal Administration who should promptly address and take appropriate decision in accordance with the scheme and the agreement executed in this regard. 7. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Dixit, during the course of argument, raised objection to the locus standi of the petition as the petitioner has not paid water taxes for the last several years and also made some encroachments. Learned Counsel Shri Deshmukh refutes the allegation that the petitioner is defaulter in payment of taxes and if there is any due, on service of bill, the petitioner would pay the taxes. 8. In view of the statement made by learned Senior Counsel Shri V.J. Dixit, on instructions as recorded above, we dispose of this petition. The ad interim relief granted by this Court on 30-6-2009 stands vacated. 5 9. Copy of this order, duly authenticated by Sheristedar of this Court be given to learned A.G.P and learned Senior Counsel Shri Dixit. 10. Certified copy, if applied, be expedited. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J. ) pnk/wp403809