ORDER 1. By this petition, pro bono publico, the petitioner has assailed the legality and propriety of the order Annexure P-I 0 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kukshi (District Dhar) by which the Sub-Divisional Officer has communicated to the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Susari that Sarpanch has no right or authority to draw water from the private pond of Mahesh s/o Korji and Praveen s/o Subhas Kulmi respondents, 3 and 4, or to acquire the same. 2. Learned counsel contends that by letter dated 15.10.2005, the Sarpanch requested the Collector to acquire the pond in the private property of respondent No.3 and 4 for making available water for the cattle heads of the village in view of the acute scarcity. It appears that the request was marked to the Sub-Divisional Officer who after making an enquiry through the Additional Tehsildar, sent the impugned letter Annexure P-I O. Learned counsel has referred to the provisions of the M.P. Peya Jal Parirakshan Adhiniyam, 1986 which permit the Collector to make declaration under section 3 thereof with regard to the water scarcity area and imposes a consequent embargo under section 4 from taking any water from the water source in such water scarcity area after such declaration. It also provides for requisition of water source temporarily after the area has been declared as a water scarcity area. 3. From the letter Annexure P-7, it docs not appear that any ground was made out to invite attention of the Collector to consider whether or not the area where the tank of respondents 3 and 4 is situate, there was shortage of the water to such an extent that it needed a declaration under section 3 of the said Act and further there was need even for requisition of the tank belonging to the private respondents by invoking the power under section 4-A of the said Adhiniyam. Under these circumstances, the conditions sine qua non were not present and, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer has in no way committed any error in declining the request of the Sarpanch. Prima facie. therefore, no case is made out calling to interference much less in the public interest litigation. Under these circumstances, the conditions sine qua non were not present and, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer has in no way committed any error in declining the request of the Sarpanch. Prima facie. therefore, no case is made out calling to interference much less in the public interest litigation. The petitioner or the Gram Panchayat, or any other affected person is free to approach the Collector under the provisions aforesaid to seek a declaration if they harbour an impression that conditions prevail necessitating exercise of power under section 3 and 4-A of the said Adhiniyam. 4. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The amount of security deposit outstanding, be refunded to the petitioner.