JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that respondents be directed to provide a separate water connection to the petitioner, at the premises, where he is residing at present. 2. Heard both the parties. 3. It is submitted by Mr. R.K.Jain, learned counsel, that the petitioner is living as her tenant in House No.3184, Kalyanji Ka Rasta, Jaipur for the last more than 30 years. The land lady lives at Calcutta and has not visited the premises, during all this time. In the said building, there are ten tenants and 16 persons residing therein. There is only one water connection in the whole building. The petitioner lives on the third floor. The water supply continues for about one hour and it becomes impossible for the petitioner to get sufficient water conveniently. The petitioner filed an application on March 24, 1990 (Anx.1) before the respondent No.2, requesting him to provide a separate water connection in his name, in the premises, which is in his occupation. A prescribed form No.5445 for obtaining fresh connection of water was also attached with the application. However, even though, the application sent by registered post, was received in the office of respondent No.2 on March 27, 1990, but no action has been taken on the same, inspite of several requests & personal visits by the petitioner. The learned counsel contends that this violates the provisions of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution. 4. I am constrained to note that such petty matters are filed in this Court by way of writ petition, merely on account of inaction on the part of the concerned officers. It was duty of the concerned officers to have dealt with the application, in accordance with law, rather than keep silence for all this time. 5. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the order dated February 28, 1991, passed by this Court in Bachu Ram v. State of Rajasthan & another (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3038/90) . The learned counsel has also referred to Sikhar Chand Palawat v. State & others (1981) ILR 207 and Smt. Ajeet Kaur v. City Magistrate, Kota. 1987 (1) RLR 174 . 6. From the facts mentioned above, I do not find any reason why the petitioner should not get a water connection, to which he is entitled as a citizen of this country. 1987 (1) RLR 174 . 6. From the facts mentioned above, I do not find any reason why the petitioner should not get a water connection, to which he is entitled as a citizen of this country. In fact, consent of the landlord for obtaining electricity or water connection is not necessary, as held by this Court several times earlier. Every tenant has a right to have facility of water for his family. It was pointed out by Mr.Saxena, learned Deputy Government Advocate, that there are some administrative instructions in this behalf.No instruction can stand in the way and tenant has a right to get separate water connection, on payment of necessary charges. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall provide a water connection to the petitioner, as applied by him in his application dated 24.3.90, on payment of necessary charges, within four weeks, after producing a certified copy of this order before the concerned Authorities. However, if the said application is not traceable for any reason in the Office, the petitioner will be entitled to file fresh application and water connection shall be provided to him within four weeks from the date of filing of such application. 8. The petition is allowed, as indicated above, with no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******