Judgment J.B. Pardiwala, J.—The present Appeal has been preferred by one Kamlaben Kantilal Shah (party-in-person) through Power of Attorney Holder Shri Paresh Kantilal Shah who happens to be her son. 2. We have heard today Shri Paresh Kantilal Shah as party-in-person holding Power of Attorney for and on behalf of Kamlaben Kantilal Shah, the original petitioner. The present Appeal has been directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20th March, 2009 disposing of the main petition by issuing few directions. Few facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this Appeal can be summarised as under:— 3. The appellant preferred petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondent Corporation to supply the petitioner basic amenities like sewerage, potable water connection, street light, street cleaning, etc. upon payment of reasonable requisite fees. A serious grievance has been voiced by the petitioner that the respondent Corporation has failed in discharging its duties to provide basic civic amenities to the citizens from whom they are recovering tax for the services which are provided. In the main petition, it was also prayed that all the bills which have been issued by the Corporation for providing the abovereferred amenities must be withdrawn because the Corporation has not been able to provide any of the basic amenities. Learned Single Judge took notice of the fact that so far as the drainage connection is concerned, the appellant’s tenement in the society is on the lower level and the drainage connection provided to the society is on the higher level. Unless and until proper levelling is done, it is not possible for the respondent Corporation to connect the drainage line. It is not possible to connect the municipal drainage line with the drainage system of the appellant’s tenement unless and until the same is levelled, otherwise the drain water from the main drainage line will get into the entire residential society of the appellant. 4. Learned Counsel for the Corporation has brought to our notice that the appellant will have to construct or lay down separate drainage line at his own cost and will have to connect the same with the municipal drainage system where the level meets. So far as the internal drainage network is concerned, it is a matter between the society and the appellant. The Corporation has no role to play. 5. So far as the internal drainage network is concerned, it is a matter between the society and the appellant. The Corporation has no role to play. 5. We have also noticed that the learned Single Judge has directed the respondent Corporation to consider the appellant’s representation and provide necessary water connection on payment of requisite fees. 6. Today, during the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation has tendered an additional affidavit-in-reply bringing it to our notice a subsequent development. It has been explained in the additional affidavit-in-reply that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has sanctioned laying down water pipelines upto the society of the appellant herein and vide Resolution No. 332 dated 6th January 2011, the Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has sanctioned the estimate cost of Rs. 3, 69,823=00 for the purpose of laying down of water pipelines from Ambica Park to Malaya Tenements (appellant’s society). It is also stated in the additional affidavit-in-reply that the work of laying down of pipelines has already commenced and it is expected to be completed by 15th March 2011. The pipelines will be laid down on the main public street and, thereafter, the society where the appellant resides will have to take water connection at their own cost. 7. We are satisfied with the additional affidavit-in-reply. It has been placed today on record by the respondent Corporation, which, atleast takes care so far as the problem of potable drinking water is concerned. 8. We cannot take cognizance of any private dispute between the appellant and his society. We cannot even accede to the prayer of the appellant that all tax bills must be withdrawn by the Corporation. Learned Single Judge has rightly observed that if there is any grievance against the outstanding dues, an adequate remedy is provided under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act and the appellant is permitted to avail of that remedy. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity or any error of law in the order of the learned Single Judge and we would not like to disturb the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. In view of what has been observed, the Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to cost.