Govt. Pleader For Res.no. 3 To 5 (n.a.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.115 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4852 OF 2912 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2012 Shri Prabhakar Raghunath Patil & Ors. ..Appellants Versus The Secretary, Pimpalgaon Agriculture Produce Market Committee & ors. ..Respondents. Mr. M.S. Karnik i/b. Sachin Gite for the appellants. Mrs. Prashant Darandale, AGP for respondent Nos.3 to 5 for State. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 13 August 2012. P.C. This appeal is directed against the interlocutory order dated 14 June 2012 of the learned Single Judge declining to grant interim relief, while admitting the appellants' Writ Petition against the judgment and order dated 15 May 2012 of the Additional Collector, Nashik in Revision Application No.50 of 2012 against the judgment and order dated 30 March 2012 passed by the learned Tahsildar, Dindori. By the said order the Tahsildar had granted permission to respondent No.1- Pimpalgaon Agricultural Produce Market Committee for laying down pipeline for carrying water for drinking purposes under the land belonging to the appellants, 7 in number, and 3 others. The appellants' case is that such permission can be granted only for carrying water for irrigation purposes and not for drinking purposes. The learned Single Judge has admitted the petition for considering the questions of law raised in the Writ Petition. However, the learned Single Judge has found that the balance of convenience is against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is only an interlocutory order. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, submits that by allowing large quantity of water for drinking purposes, the water table level will come down considerably and will adversely affect the appellants right to draw water for irrigation purposes. The learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, states that the appellants would like to make representation to the Tahsildar for restricting the quantity of water to be supplied for drinking purposes. It is clarified that pendency of the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge shall not preclude the appellants (Writ Petitioners) from making such representation, but we make it clear that we may not be treated to have expressed any opinion on the issue. Subject to the above, the Appeal is dismissed without going into the merits of the controversy between the parties. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE (N.M. JAMDAR, J.)