IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. : 469 of 2006 Date of decision : 1.4.2008 Anokhi Ram …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. P.C.Sharma, Advocate, For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General Per Deepak Gupta, J. The petitioner by means of this writ petition prays for the grant of the following reliefs: (a) that the State may be directed to follow the judgement passed by this Hon’ble Court in being writ petition No. 567 of 1991. This writ petition was decided on 2.6.1992. (b) that the respondents may be directed not to execute the scheme from Kamlay Ka Makhala or else extend the water supply scheme for drinking and irrigation purposes to the villages of Dhaliana, Thadiana, Kot, Bashad, Shirguli and other adjoining villages from Saingan Ka Nal which is being lifted for providing water to the police Batalion. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. (c) that respondent may be directed not to supply water to Janed Panchayat from Bahli Ka Nal as the Janed Panchayat is already having a scheme from Kot Ka Nal and instead supply this water to the petitioners aforesaid and to the residents of adjoining villages in Junga Panchayat. (d) that the respondents may be directed to pay damages to all the owners of water mills (gharat) and land owners according to law. (e) to any other relief to which the petitioners may be deemed entitled be also granted. As far as relief (a) is concerned, we have gone through the judgment passed in CWP No. 567 of 1991 dated 2.6.1992. There is no direction issued to the State Government in the said judgement. Therefore, the question of implementing the said judgment against the State does not arise. In any event, if this judgment was not complied with by the State, it was the duty of the petitioner to approach this Court at once for implementation of the said judgement. The other two prayers cannot be granted by this Court. How and in what manner the water supply schemes are to be implemented is not to be decided by the Court but by the executive. If the rights of any party are affected, the said party can approach the Civil Court. These matters cannot be decided in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. ( Deepak Gupta), J. April 1, 2008 ( Rajiv Sharma), J. ™