JUDGMENT - S.S. PARKAR, J.:---Heard Mr. Paranjape for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. This contempt petition has been taken out by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2384 of 1996 alleging non-compliance of the interim order dated 19th July, 1996, passed in the aforesaid petition by a Division Bench of this Court. The earlier petition was filed for directions against the respondents for supplying water connection to the buildings in Sheetal Nagar in Mira Road-Bhayander in Dist, Thane. At the time of admission this Court had issued interim directions directing the respondents to supply the water connections to the buildings in question about which grievance was made in the aforesaid writ petition notwithstanding the fact that the buildings had not been given completion certificate on the ground that the buildings were constructed unauthorisedly. 2.Present contempt petition has been filed alleging that inspite of the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid petition there is non-compliance with the said order passed by this Court and the buildings in question were not provided with water connection. In reply to the above petition affidavits-in-reply have been filed by the Chief Officer of Respondent No. 3 Shri K.U. Kelkar, Shri P.M. Phadnis, Executive Engineer of respondent No. 5 on 18th December, 1997. There is one more affidavit dated 17th December, 1997, filed by Shri A.V. Kapadnis, Junior Engineer of respondent No. 3. 3.In this contempt petition the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Justice A.P. Shah and Justice Patil on 28th November 1997, directed the Registrar to appoint an officer of this Court as Court Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining whether the water connection had been provided to the petitioner's building as per the aforesaid order of 19th July, 1997. Pursuant to the said direction the officer of this Court, Shri V.S. Mahimkar, was appointed the Court Commissioner who has filed his report dated 10-12-97. As per the said report except two buildings all the buildings in the said locality had been provided with the water connection. In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 by Shri Kapadnis and Shri Kelkar, it has been pointed out that all the buildings in question had been provided with water connection. As per the said report except two buildings all the buildings in the said locality had been provided with the water connection. In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 by Shri Kapadnis and Shri Kelkar, it has been pointed out that all the buildings in question had been provided with water connection. However because of the inadequacy of water sufficient water is not received by the buildings inspite of the fact that the water connections had been provided to the said buildings. In the said affidavits there is mention to problem about the water shortage and it is pointed out that the 2nd respondent had sanctioned about 2000 buildings pursuant to which more that 1200 buildings had already been on constructed and are occupied in the said area of Mira Road Bhayander. However due to the inadequacy of water no sufficient water could be made available to the respondents. 4.From the perusal of the aforesaid affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that pursuant to the order of this Court the water connections have been provided to all the buildings in question and there is no adequate water supply because of the shortage of water for which the respondents cannot be held responsible. There is no affidavit in rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Executive Engineer on behalf of the respondent No. 5 which is the Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board it has been pointed out that there are three sources of water i.e. (a) the Bombay Municipal Corporation to the extent of 1.5 M.L.D.; (b) M.I.D.C. to the extent of 2.00 M.L.D. and (c) Respondent No. 5 itself to the extent of 19.72 M.L.D. which is not sufficient. Inspite of the aforesaid sources it appears that the supply of water is not adequate as a large number of buildings had been coming up in the said area in the recent years. The said facts are not challenged by filing rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the petitioner. 5.We heard Mr. Paranjape at length and are satisfied that there is no deliberate or otherwise non-compliance with the order of this Court as alleged in the petition. Although the water connections have been given there is inadequate supply in the said area for which the respondents cannot be held responsible. 5.We heard Mr. Paranjape at length and are satisfied that there is no deliberate or otherwise non-compliance with the order of this Court as alleged in the petition. Although the water connections have been given there is inadequate supply in the said area for which the respondents cannot be held responsible. We are satisfied that there is no deliberate non-compliance with the order of this Court as alleged. We, therefore, see no merit in this contempt petition. Hence this contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. 6.In the result this contempt petition is dismissed. Contempt petition dismissed. *****