CWP No.21261 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No.21261 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.12.2008 Parladh and another ...Petitioners. vs. State of Haryana and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. --- Present: Mr.D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate, for the petitioners. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) Through the instant writ petition the petitioners have impugned the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, whereby some component of drinking water has been utilised for purposes of irrigation. It is on this ground, that the decision of the Chief Canal Officer/BWSU, Irrigation Department, Haryana, dated 28.11.2008, which has been impugned at the hands of the petitioners. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that there is a dire scarcity of drinking water, and that, drinking water should not have been diverted for purposes of agricultural use. It seems to us, that the petitioners are under the mistaken belief that drinking water is being diverted for agricultural purposes. This, in fact, is not the true determination at the hands of the authorities. Out of the component of water reserved for being treated for purposes of drinking water a part of the untreated water has been diverted for purposes of irrigation. It is revealed from the impugned orders, that the component of CWP No.21261 of 2008 2 the aforesaid water reserved for utilisation to be treated as drinking water, is in excess. The aforesaid excess, as per the impugned order, has been presently diverted for irrigation purposes. For the determination of the present controversy, it needs to be emphasised, that there is no material on the record of this case to show, that the facilities available for treating the water under reference (to make it worthy of drinking) are under utilised, or that, sufficient drinking water is not available. The authenticity of these issues cannot be based on a few affidavits placed on the record of this case. In any case, the instant litigation is not at the hands of a party claiming drinking water. The instant litigation is between two agriculturists who have been assigned a component of water for purposes of irrigation. In case, there is a scarcity of drinking water, and the component earmarked for drinking water is being utilised for the irrigation, it is obvious that litigation in that behalf would have been initiated by the aggrieved residents of the village. That is not so, in so far as the present case is concerned. In the present set of circumstance, we fail to understand the grievance of the petitioner, who has filed the instant petition only as a co-sharer of irrigation water For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders, and the writ petition is, accordingly dismissed. ( J.S.Khehar) Judge (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge December 23, 2008 rk CWP No.21261 of 2008 3