1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3909/2006 Bhimrao s/o Natthuji Kadu and another VS. The State of Mah. and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 16th September, 2009. Heard Mr. Saboo, leaned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sonak, leaned AGP for respondents 1 and 2. By this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have sought direction against respondents to stop construction of concrete road on the elevated bed of nallah and construction of drain of nallah of village Pathroat. The petitioners have further prayed that the respondents be directed to prepare technical plan through Competent Authority for entire 300 meters patch of the nallah passing through Gaothan of the village Pathroat which provides infrastructure for flow of flood water keeping unaffected natural demarcation of nallah boundaries and maintaining natural bed level of nallah. The petitioners further prayed that respondent no.1 be directed to provide funds for completion of proposed work. 2 On behalf of respondent no.1 affidavit dated 17.6.2008 has been filed by the Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad (Works) Dn. Amravati. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, it has been stated that fresh proposal regarding construction of drain as well as nallah bed to the extent of 300 meters has been directed to prepare fresh proposal for the same, pursuant to which Irrigation Department of Government of Maharashtra has to prepare plan and also to propose the budgetary expenditure to be incurred on such plan. It has been further stated that respondent no.1 has directed respondent no.2 to submit detailed proposal after getting the plans approved from the Irrigation Department so that work of nallah draining can be undertaken as per the plans approved. It has been further stated that after receipt of the approved plan as well as budgetary estimates from the Irrigation Department -respondent no.2 would forward detailed proposal to respondent no.3 and after receipt of the said proposal the answering respondent would be in a position to consider the same. Mr. Sonak, learned AGP is not in a position to state as to what is the present position and he seeks time to take instructions from respondents 1 and 2. We are not inclined to grant time to respondents 1 and 2. It was expected of learned AGP to take instructions well in advance in the matter. 3 Mr. Saboo submitted that the petition be disposed of by directing respondents to complete the entire process within a reasonable time. Considering the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1, we direct respondents 1 and 2 to complete entire process expeditiously and in any case complete the same by 30th May, 2010. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar