A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE first grievance of the petitioner which, prima facie, impressed us was that the water supply to the area, referred to in the petition, was from the water collected from the process of rain water harvesting. In response to this, the respondents have filed affidavit of Superintending Engineer and alongwith the affidavit, have relied on photographs to refute the said allegation. It is stated in the affidavit that water storage tanks are constructed in the concerned area and water supplied is through the said tanks. This fact has been substantiated by the photographs appended to the affidavit of the Superintending Engineer. The correctness of those photographs has been disputed, but we are not inclined to accept the stand of the petitioner, which is only word against word. In our opinion, there is no reason to discard the stand taken by the officials of the State on affidavit. Further, the respondents have also produced the water testing reports indicating that the water supplied to the area concerned is from the water storage tank and not from the water collected by the process of rain water harvesting.
(3.) THE petitioner, then relying on Annexure P6, would contend that at least direction be issued to the Executive Engineer to augment the water supply. In the replyaffidavit, however, it is stated that the requirement of the village is only for 300 persons whereas the water storage capacity of the water storage tank is to the extent of 70,000 liters. Thus, the petitioner is free to make ou representation to the Executive Engineer for augmentation of water supply, which can be considered by the said Authority, on its own merits, in accordance with law. It is not possible for us to decide that question which is a technical matter to be examined by the said h Authority.;