Judgment 1. Both these matters are connected one and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. C.W.J.C. No. 690 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioners for recall of the order dated 3.7.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11717 of 1999 by a Bench presided over by one of us (Nagendra Rai, J.) by which a direction was issued to the Commissioner, Water Resources Department to take all steps to complete the embankment and in case any resistance is made by the local people, the District Magistrate was directed to take steps to help the authority in completing the embankment. C.W.J.C. No. 2344 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents State to hold enquiry with regard to desirability and feasibility of completion of East Embankment of river Bhutahi Balan taking into account the report of the expert committee headed by N. Nagmani, I.A.S. and for a further direction to the respondent. State and its officials to take final decision in the matter in the larger public interest. A further prayer has been made that the respondents may be injuncted from taking any steps in pursuance of the notice dated 31.1.2004, as contained in Annexure-5 to this writ application. 3. The present writ applications are in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. Earlier C.W.J.C. No. 11717 of 1999 was filed by the petitioners of that case for a direction to complete the East Tatbandh of Bhutahi Balan river near Phulparas which was not being completed due to objection raised by the local people and this Court by order dated 3.7.2003 disposed of the said writ application with a direction to take all steps to complete the embankment and in case any resistance is made by the local people the District Magistrate concerned will take steps to help the authority in completing the embankment. Thereafter, these two writ applications have been filed for the purposes as mentioned above. 4. According to the case of the petitioners, the construction of east embankment of Bhutahi Balan river will cause disadvantage to the residents of some of the villages and even the Technical Expert Committee headed by N. Nagmani, I.A.S. in the year 1978-79 had recommended for not making the said construction and as such the respondents-State may be directed not to proceed with the construction till the matter is decided by the Expert Committee. 5. 5. The stand of the State, on the other hand, is that no such Technical Expert Committee was constituted as urged on behalf of the petitioners, rather, the scheme for construction of embankment of Bhutahi Balan River was discussed in the 27th meeting of Technical Advisory Committee on 23rd June, 1979. That Committee was headed by the then Commissioner of Irrigation Mr. N. Nagmani, I.A.S. The Committee did not oppose the construction of embankment, on the other hand, from the report of the Technical Advisory Committee it appears that it recommended for construction of Eastern embankment of Bhutahi Balan river in four phases. It is further stated that phase no. 1 and 2 have been constructed on the total cost of Rs. 187.00 lakhs. Part of phase no. 3 has not been constructed due to some obstruction raised by the villagers regarding which dispute has been raised by the petitioners in the present case. It is further stated that the completion of the said embankment is necessary to protect the area from flood and that is a larger public interest. The construction has been stopped with regard to few kilometres i.e. from 21.43 kms. to 23.28 kms. Because of impediment created by the villagers the work was stopped. Later on, in view of the order passed by this Court steps have been taken, i.e. tenders have been invited and work has been allotted. Thus, according to the State only part of the embankment has not been constructed and the same has to be constructed in larger interest of the people of the area. 6. Public Interest litigation by its very nature means interest of public has to be safeguarded. Once the Government takes a policy decision either in the field of development or any other field then unless that policy decision suffers from breach of any statutory provision, the Court will not interfere with the said policy decision only on the ground that it will affect some persons, especially when by the said policy decision larger public interest is being served. In this case, from the statements made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it appears that the scheme was approved as back as in the year 1979-80, major embankment has been constructed and only part of it has to be constructed which is not being constructed due to political interference and objection raised by the villagers. When the matter came to this Court, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances said direction has been issued to complete the scheme and the Government with a view to implement its policy and to complete the work has taken steps, this Court does not find any illegality in proceeding with the said scheme. On the other hand, the same is necessary in larger public interest and to protect the people from flood. 7. In the result, there is no merit in both the writ applications and the same are accordingly dismissed.