JUDGMENT Petitioner is running a school upto 5th Std. at Snehlataganj, Indore. His grievance is that though Municipal Corporation had alloted 3 water connections to him it had failed to supply adequate and regular water to his establishment despite payment of charges. He made several complaints to the Administrator in this regard and filed W.P.No. 1694/94 also, which was disposed off by order dated 1.2.1995 requiring him to consider and decide his notice dated 29.9.94 within 3 months. But all this went a begging. Thereafter several demands of justice were made to the corporation authorities but they failed to redress the grievance leading to filing of W.P.No. 918/96 wherein it was prayed that corporation be directed to restore water supply to his establishment in the face of statutory duty cast on it. This petition was resisted amongst others on technical plea that petitioner's problem was attributable to low pressure of water supply from Narmada Jalood Pump station. It was explained that his building was located at a higher elevation and thus was not able to receive requisite water flow because of low pressure. Petitioner's writ petition was dismissed by order dated 21.7.1997 by the writ Court summarily. He has now filed this appeal to assail the order. Petitioner's whole case was projected around provisions contained in sections 66, and 220 to 222 of Municipal Corporation Act read with Bye law 44. According to him these provisions imposed a statutory duty upon the Corporation to provide a sufficient supply in all events and circumstances. A mandamus could be issued to it to supply requisite quantity of water to him without fail. Reliance in this regard was placed on AIR 1972 SC 793 and AIR 1956 Cal. 291. A survey of the provisions relied upon by petitioner does not suggest any such conclusion. Section 66 falling under Chapter V only requires the Corporation to make adequate provision for management and maintenance of all municipal water works and construction of new works for providing supply of suitable water for public and private purposes. It does not enjoin upon it to provide water to all and sundry and asking and dehors of any terms and conditions. Similarly section 220 empowers commissioner for supplying proper and sufficient water for public and private purpose. Sections 221 and 222 laid down the procedure for making of applications for allotment of water connections, etc. It does not enjoin upon it to provide water to all and sundry and asking and dehors of any terms and conditions. Similarly section 220 empowers commissioner for supplying proper and sufficient water for public and private purpose. Sections 221 and 222 laid down the procedure for making of applications for allotment of water connections, etc. It would be seen that none on these provisions casts any statutory mandatory duty on the corporation to supply water to any individual and that too in a particular quantity Nor do these confer any corresponding right on the consumer. It would be too much to say that corporation was duty bound to ensure uninterrupted flow of water to all and sundry unconditionally. As would be evident the statute only required it to make provisions by lawful measures for management and maintenance of water works to provide sufficient water supply for public and private purpose. But it would all depend on various factors including resources position of the corporation and the technical aspects involved. Moreover allotment of a water connection to a consumer was a contractual matter governable by its own fastened on the corporation to supply water to the consumers in disregard of such conditions. It may be a difficult matter where consumer invokes contractual clauses to seek their enforcement. A direction could perhaps issue in such a case. But in the present case, petitioner had taken everything for granted and had not laid any foundation in support of his case. He had not even chosen to place crucial order of allotment on record to allege that corporation had violated any terms and conditions of the contract and that it was bound to supply him any particular quantity of water. Nor he had proved his bona fides that he had performed his part by depositing the charges regularly. All told he had proceeded on the premise that corporation was duty bound to cater to his demand in all case irrespective of technical snags involved in the matter. The judgments cited by LC for petitioner are also distinguishable on facts and law. There can be no quarrel with the preposition that corporation was obliged to carry out the statutory duty as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment (supra), or that it could be asked to perform its part in the light of contractual terms and conditions. The judgments cited by LC for petitioner are also distinguishable on facts and law. There can be no quarrel with the preposition that corporation was obliged to carry out the statutory duty as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment (supra), or that it could be asked to perform its part in the light of contractual terms and conditions. But in the present case none of these contingencies arise. In the circumstances, we find ourselves in accord with the view taken by writ Court which is affirmed. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.