JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. It is submitted by Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel, that petitioner is residing for the last more than forty years near Pareek College Road, Hardevji Ka Mandir, in a house, of which he is owner and occupier. It is a house, of which he is owner and occupier. It is further submitted that the land on which the house is built, is "KUNCHA UPAD", therefore, he does not have any document about the ownership of the above land. The petitioner has no water connection in the house and has to fetch water from the public water tap, fixed on the road side. The water, in this public tap, is available for a short duration and there is long queue of persons for fetching the water. He filed an application on May 22, 1990 to the non-petitioner No. 2, the Executive Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, City Division- II (Revneue), Jaipur, requesting him to provide water connection in his name in the house, which is in his occupation. The necessary form (Form No. 9452) duly filled-up and signed was filed. The above-mentioned application was sent to the Executive Engineer by registered post, a copy of which has been produced a marked Anx. 1. The non-petitioner No. 2 has neither given any reply to the application of the petitioner, nor shown any reason for not providing water connection to him. The petitioner approached personally the concerned Authorities and was verbally told that unless he produce a 'Patta', regarding ownership of the house, no connection, will be provided to him. It is contended by the learned counsel that the land on which the house of the petitioner is built is "KUNCHA UPAD", where he is living for more than 40 years, therefore, the petitioner does not possess any 'Patta' of the house. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the refusal not providing the water connection to the petitioner is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India,'as he is being deprived of amenity of water, which is essential for subsistence of his life. 2. Several opportunities were given to the respondents to file reply, but no return has been filed. 2. Several opportunities were given to the respondents to file reply, but no return has been filed. The learned counsel for the respondents could not show any provision in the relevant Rules for supply of water, in which it is essential requirement that water can be supplied only to such persons, who are owners of the building/house. It may be pointed out that ours is a Welfare State, where the Government should provide essential amenities like water and electricity to all its citizens, irrespective of their status in life. There is no doubt that water is a necessary amenity for every citizen. It may be mentioned that even tenants are provided electricity and water connection. Therefore, there is no reason why the petitioner, who is, in any case, occupying a house, should be denied water connection. 3. It is, therefore, directed that the respondents shall provide water connection to the petitioner as applied by him in his application dated 22.5.90, on payment of necessary charges, within a period of four weeks, after filing a copy o this order. However, if this application is not traceable for any reason, the petitioner will be entitled to file fresh application and water connection shall provided to him within a period of four weeks. 4. The writ petition is allowed, with no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******