Judgment :- 1. Certain residents of Karungal area in Kanyakumari District have filed this Writ Petition by way of public interest litigation praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandanus directing the respondents not to proceed with the fitting up of new pipelines from the Kappiyara well and Singinikulam well for water pumped from these wells being taken for storage and distribution to a newly constructed overhead water-tank at Karungal market under the Selection Grade Kaungal Panchayat. 2. When the Writ Petition came up for orders on 26th November, 1984, notice of motion was ordered. In response to the notice the first respondent has appeared through counsel and has filed a counter and has also produced the relevant papers to explain the position. 3. There are two wells in Karungal known as Kappiyara well and Singinikuiam well. Two water storage tanks have already been constructed and water is pumped out from these two wells and stored in these tanks and supplied to the members of the public. The respondents have now constructed a bigger overhead tank near the Karungal Market. As per the Scheme envisaged, water is to be pumped from the above mentioned two wells to the newly constructed tank also and then made available to the members of the public through distribution pipes. 4. On the ground that the taking of water to the newly constructed overhead tank would deplete the supply of water in the existing wells, the petitioners raise objection to the drawing of water from the two wells in question and therefore, seek the issue of a Writ of Mandamus. 5. From the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent and the records produced by him it is seen that the petitioners claim for admission of the writ petition and issue of rule nisi cannot be countenanced. In the first place, it is seen that an Action Committee constituted to solve the Karungal area drinking water problem has passed a resolution on 30th January, 1984 giving its consent to the overhead tank being constructed. From the photographs produced by the first respondents counsel, it is seen that the construction of the overhead tank has also been completed. On account of these factors, the petitioners do not have any ground for raising objections to the construction of the overhead tank. 6. From the photographs produced by the first respondents counsel, it is seen that the construction of the overhead tank has also been completed. On account of these factors, the petitioners do not have any ground for raising objections to the construction of the overhead tank. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have no objection to the construction of the tank or to its being used for supply of water to the residents of Karungal, but, their objection is only confirmed to the taking of water from the two existing wells to the newly constructed tank. So far as this objection is concerned, the first respondent has given details regarding the measurements of the wells, the measurements of the tanks and the availability of water in the wells even after the two existing tanks are filled up. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners state that the petitioners are contemplating the filing of a suit in the civil Court, I do not think it necessary or advisable to make mention of all the details given by the first respondent regarding the size of the well, the availability of water, etc., and make any comment thereon, because it may have some effect on the mind of the Civil Court before which the petitioners want to file a suit. Even bereft of the details, it has to be pointed out that the authorities would not have sunk so much of money in the construction of an overhead tank if they had not taken into consideration the copiousness of supply of water in the wells and their capacity to fill the newly constructed tank in addition to filling up the existing two tanks. For all these reasons, it has to be held that no grounds are made out for issuing rule nisi. The Writ Petition will therefore stand dismissed.