S.N.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) AFFIDAVITS have been filed by Sri D.K. Upadhayay saying that certain amount has been released to Nagar Nigam to the tune of Rs.132.37 crores as against the original demand of Rs.145.338 crores, after joint survey. This amount has been released for civil work whereas Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan says that an amount of Rs.29.48 crores is needed for lighting against which only an amount of Rs.2.48 crores has been provided and no amount for waste-management etc. has been released, and in fact a total amount of Rs.61.092 crores was required. Sri Namit Sharma says that the statement of the Lucknow Development Authority that it has made a joint inspection, is not correct as Jal Sansthan has never been associated with any such inspection and the inspection report has been submitted. So far expenditure of Jal Sansthan is concerned, against the demand of Rs.67.8 crores, Sri D.K. Upadhayay says that an amount of Rs.40 crores has been released in terms of the report furnished by third agency viz; the chief Engineer, Jal Nigam. Sri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the U.P. Jal Sansthan, says that though in the minutes of the meeting, dated 25.5.2009 there was a direction that the Chief Engineer, Jal Nigam under his supervision shall make a joint inspection with the assistance of the Lucknow Development Authority and Jal Sansthan but in view of submission made by Sri Namit Sharma on behalf of Jal Sansthan, it appears that Jal Sansthan was not associated in the joint inspection. Be that as it may. The question which requires consideration is not that whether Jal Sansthan was associated in the joint inspection or not but it concerns with the public interest, where request of money or disbursement of fund cannot be stopped or withheld, if it is needed for the development of the locality particularly, they having been established by the Lucknow Development Authority and allotment/sale of the houses and flats have been made by the Lucknow Development Authority itself. The Lucknow Development Authority was under an obligation to develop the colony upto a particular level and then hand it over to the concerned authority or body after providing civic amenities i.e. sewer, water, roads, parks, schools, lighting etc. Since in this case, the Lucknow Development Authority has handed over the colonies without developing them as required under the rules, therefore, it is for the Lucknow Development Authority to see that full cooperation and assistance both financial as well as technical as required be provided, so that colonies may be properly developed and basic amenities are provided to the residents and inhabitants of the area in question, as they cannot be allowed to live without basic essential amenities and therefore, we provide that the grievance raised by the executing agencies namely; Jal Nigam, Jal Sansthan, Nagar Nigam or any other agency and for that matter as may be raised, shall be considered by the Lucknow Development Authority and permanent solution of the problem may be made so that the development work in the area in question may not be hampered for lack of money and funds. It would also be advisable, that if the Jal Sansthan was not associated in the joint inspection, a fresh inspection be made so that any discrepancy or short coming in the report, may be removed as may be advised. We also take notice of the fact that certain amenities still remain to be completed for which part of the funds as demanded has been released from time to time to the local bodies and authorities and therefore, the work should be in progress. The counsel for the Jal Sansthan says that it has already started work and the same is in progress in Gomti Nagar area and in some of the other like areas of all the colonies. Nagar Nigam also says that it has started the work. We accordingly direct that all the concerned local authorities and bodies shall complete their work at the earliest as the residents or inhabitants cannot be allowed to live in unhygienic conditions which are not worth habitable for any one. Sri B.K. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner says that in fact it is not necessary to see that whether money has been paid or not but in fact it has to be seen that whether actual work has been done or not. List this matte after summer vacation in the month of July 2009, on which date the status report shall also be filed.;