JUDGMENT SHAFFIQUE, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed by parties in person who are the owners of an extent of 40.60 ares of land at Veeyapuram. According to them, the said land was identified by the Kerala Water Authority (hereinafter referred to as KWA), respondents 2 to 4 herein for constructing an intake well cum pump house for the purpose of water supply to different areas in Alappuzha district. Though the petitioners have given consent for surrendering the said land and proceedings of KWA culminated in initiating steps for acquisition of land, KWA subsequently changed their stand and shifted the place of the intake well cum pumping station to a place known as Pannaikadavu which is on the upstream of Veeyapuram. Such a change had been made by KWA on the basis of Ext.P9 order dated 10/08/2007 which is impugned in this writ petition. Hence the petitioners seek to set aside Ext.P9 and for a direction to respondents to implement Alappuzha Water Supply Scheme with the source of intake well cum pumping station at Veeyapuram. 2. According to the petitioners, KWA has no right to shift the water intake site from Veeyapuram to Pannaikadavu since this Court in judgment dated 04/12/2006 in W.P.C.No.16681 of 2006 had observed as follows: "The water authority shall once again make a detailed study of whatever sites that are available for water intake including Veeyapuram site and with the help of scientific data so collected take a final decision on the site to be selected for water intake for the Alappuzha Water Supply Project." 3. It is contended that the scientific study in terms of Ext.P5 judgment has not found any negative impact in respect of Veeyapuram site and in that view of the matter there was no necessity to shift the site of intake well and pumping station to another place. Petitioners rely upon Exts.P6 and P6(a) letters dated 14/06/2007 and 15/06/2007 of KWA. In fact in Ext.P6(a), the Executive Engineer had reported as under: "As per initial proposal, site selected for intake structure of CWSS to Alappuzha and eight adjoining village was at Veeyapuram, Attumali Church Kadavu in Pampa river. Analysis of water quality of this source in April 2003 revealed that chloride content was found beyond the acceptable limit. Later in 6/2003 and 7/2003 samples were selected from alternate source at Pannaikadavu near Cyclemukku at about 6 Kms. Analysis of water quality of this source in April 2003 revealed that chloride content was found beyond the acceptable limit. Later in 6/2003 and 7/2003 samples were selected from alternate source at Pannaikadavu near Cyclemukku at about 6 Kms. upstream of the river, where chloride content is found within limit (copy enclosed). As directed from this office, Assistant Engineer, Quality Control District Lab, Alappuzha has collected samples from these two sources on 11/04/2007, 23/04/2007 & 18/06/2007 and analysis reports submitted (copy enclosed). All the tested parameters are within the permissible limit for both the sources. On local enquiry, it is found that excess chloride found in the samples collected from Attumali church kadavu (Veeyapuram) in 4/2003, may be due to the salt water intrusion due to the opening of Thannermukkom barrage in early March. It was also found that within a period of 30 years salt water intrusion was occurred for the 1st time up to this extend. Even then the chances of such occurrences in future cannot be ruled out." 4. It is therefore the case of the petitioners that when the parameters of the water quality does not show much difference in respect of the two sites and it is reported that the tested parameters are within the permissible limits for both the sources, shifting to Pannaikadavu is with mala fide purpose which will involve more expenditure as additional 6 Kms pipeline has to be laid to augment the water supply scheme. 5. The petitioners also point out that change in the decision making process for shifting the site was totally unscientific and in respect of the present site at Pannaikadavu width of the river is only 1/3rd of the width in comparison to the width of the river at Veeyapuram. It is also the case of the petitioners that the site at Veeyapuram is the converging point of three major rivers namely Pampa, Manimala and Achankovil rivers and that with reference to Pannaikadavu site there is a possibility of a tributary of Pampa meeting the junction immediately after the proposed intake well which is highly polluted since it carries pollutants and waste from the commercial centres located on either side of the said tributary. 6. 6. Petitioners also relied upon Ext.P10, a text book in Water Supply and Sanitary Engineering -19th edition by Mr.Rangwala to contend that the location of the intake on the curve should be avoided and also that the location of the intake at the downstream and the vicinity of the point of waste water should be avoided. It is further stated in the said Text that the intake should be as near as possible to the treatment plant so that the cost of converging water to the treatment plant should be minimised and that the intake should be located in the straight portion of the source and erosion of banks should be minimum. 7. It is also the case of the petitioners that in Ext.P5 judgment, this Court had observed that M.S.Steel pipes shall be preferred to GRP pipes. Now that KWA is using HDPE pipes, it is contrary to the said judgment and wastage of public money. 8. KWA had filed a memo dated 28/3/2012 producing acopy of the Augmentation of Water Supply Scheme of Alappuzha Municipality and 8 adjoining Panchayats at Ambalappuzha taluk. As per the said scheme, the earlier proposal for water supply had been expanded by including 8 adjoining Panchayaths to the project and they have formulated a new detailed project report with an installed capacity of 62 million litre per day (MLD) with source from Pampa river at Pannaikadavu near Cyclemukku in Pathanamthitta district. The project includes the intake well cum pump house with 1000mm High Density Poly Ethene (HDPE) pipes, Raw Water Pumping Main (19.30 Km), 62 MLD capacity Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and Clear Water Pumping Main (5 packages). The status of the work as on 12/03/12 is also stated. It is indicated that in respect of the Well cum Pump House at Kadapra the Contractor had started the preliminary work and he is proposed to complete the work by 05/02/2013. In respect of the Raw Water Pumping Main, the work was tendered after splitting the work in three reaches. Technical bid was opened on 21/02/2012 and price bid was opened on 09/03/2012. It is proposed to complete the work by 30/05/2013. 9. In respect of the 62 MLD Water Treatment Plant at Karumady the work has been completed. As far as Clear Water Pumping Main -reach 3A is concerned the work is entrusted to M/s.ABG Engineering (India) Private Ltd. Thiruvalla on 27/12/2011. It is proposed to complete the work by 30/05/2013. 9. In respect of the 62 MLD Water Treatment Plant at Karumady the work has been completed. As far as Clear Water Pumping Main -reach 3A is concerned the work is entrusted to M/s.ABG Engineering (India) Private Ltd. Thiruvalla on 27/12/2011. The pipes have been supplied and they started pipe laying work which is proposed to be completed on 26/12/2012. In respect of reach 3B, the work is entrusted to BESL Infra-Projects Ltd, Kochi. The contractor had supplied the pipes and ready to start external cement coating at stock yard. Work is proposed to be completed on 19/12/2012. In respect of Reach 3C, work is entrusted with Sri.M.V.Viswanathan, Aluva, Kochi. He had supplied 90% of the pipes and materials and started pipe laying work which is proposed to be completed on 11/12/2012. In respect of reach 3D also, Sri.M. V.Viswanathan is the Contractor and he had supplied 90% of the pipes and materials and started pipe laying work which is to be completed on 11/12/2012. In respect of reach 3E, M/s.Sriram EPC Ltd, Chennai is the Contractor. They have supplied 95% of the materials and they started pipe laying work which is expected to be completed by 25/2/2013. 10. Respondents 2 to 4 had filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that the proposal for acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioners for intake well cum pumping station of the Alappuzha Water Supply Scheme was during 2002, but possession was not taken by KWA and for that reason the land value was not paid and the acquisition proceedings were not initiated. According to them, there was strong reason to shift the intake well cum pumping station to Pannaikadavu. It is stated that the site proposed at Pannaikadavu was not finalized until 14/06/2007 which is evident from Ext.P6 itself. Hence further studies were conducted and to avoid problems like saline water in future, the site at Pannaikadavu was chosen. The allegations of mala fides were also denied. They have also indicated that the water treatment plant had been completed and that further steps had been taken for construction of the intake well, pump house and also laying pipe for the scheme. The allegations of mala fides were also denied. They have also indicated that the water treatment plant had been completed and that further steps had been taken for construction of the intake well, pump house and also laying pipe for the scheme. It is also stated that even though the width of the river at Pannaikadavu is less than the width of the river at Veeyapuram, on account of the fact that the pollution will be more in the downstream, Pannaikadavu being in the upstream above the town area, pollution will be much less than that near the petitioners' property. 11. It is further contended that there had been considerable change in the proposal of the scheme. Initially the proposal was in respect of 40 MLD and size of MS pipe was 1217 MF and the project was envisaged with the financial assistance of HUDCO. At present, the project is taken up under UIDSSMT scheme and caters to provide 62 MLD water to Alappuzha Municipality and 8 adjoining Panchayaths in Ambalappuzha taluk. In that view of the matter, the project proponents had to make necessary changes in the proposals and different types of pipes were required to be used on getting expert opinion in this regard. It is stated that as per directions in Ext.P5 judgment of this Court, a detailed study had been conducted and a High Level Committee comprising of the Chief Engineer (Southern Region), Executive Engineer, Wascon (Consultancy wing of KWA) and the Project Manager met on 26/08/2008 and considered the matter in detail after obtaining a soil investigation report, decided to choose HDPE pipe for the Raw Water Pumping Main in order to converge 62 MLD water from the pump house to the water treatment plant. Thus, City Level Technical Advisory Group (TAG) constituted by the Government advised Alappuzha Municipality to use the very same pipes for Raw Water Pumping Main. In fact different types of pipes such as MS, DI, HDPE and PVC pipes are selected to use at different locations in the same project taking into account the soil condition, economy and pressure rating. The respondents therefore sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit on 30/03/2012 inter alia contending that the reasons stated by the respondents are totally incorrect. The respondents therefore sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit on 30/03/2012 inter alia contending that the reasons stated by the respondents are totally incorrect. According to the petitioners the original proposal was to establish an intake well at Kuriath kadavu which is 5.5 Kms upstream from Veeyapuram. The same was rejected as per Ext.P1 and Veeyapuram was proposed. Pannaikadavu site is 1= Kms upstream from Kuriath kadavu. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the finding in Ext.P1 will have no relevance if the Pannaikadavu site is approved and the present attempt is only to increase the cost of the project on an unscientific basis. It is further indicated that there was no enquiry conducted for shifting the site. According to the petitioners the present site at Pannaikadavu is just below the Mannar township and Parimala pilgrim centre and that waste that flows into the river is too high and therefore pollution in that area will be much more than the pollution level at Veeyapuram. He also produced additional exhibits along with the reply affidavit as Exts.P22 to P31. 13. Petitioners filed I.A.No.5633 of 2012 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and by order dated 12/04/2012, learned Single Judge had directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and a report is filed by the Advocate Commissioner on 01/06/2012. As per the said report, Mannar town and the Pannaikadavu site are situated on the upstream from the converging point where a tributary canal meets Pampa river. The canal or tributary of Pampa passing through the middle of Mannar town merges with Pampa river at the converging point. The width of the Pampa river and the site point is 79 metres and depth about 3.5 metres at a distance of 4 Metres from the river side. The well is located at 8 Ms from the river side, the flow of water at the river point wherein the intake well is located is towards west directed towards Pannaikadavu bridge direction and the converging point. The water flow in the river point at the site area is steady. There is a curve on the river side, that is 150 metres in length from the river side. It is also stated that at the time of visit, the Pump house work was under progress. The water flow in the river point at the site area is steady. There is a curve on the river side, that is 150 metres in length from the river side. It is also stated that at the time of visit, the Pump house work was under progress. Veeyapuram site is 7 Kms downstream from the converging site at Pannaikadavu and the treatment plant is located at Karumady which is about 19.3 Kms from the project site. Water from the river is taken through two pipes having 1 M diameter each and flows to the inspection chamber and from there to the intake well. From the intake well, water is pumped to the treatment plant at Karumady using two numbers of 300 hp motors at a time. Advocate Commissioner was also given a copy of the plan which is produced along with the report. 14. KWA had filed another memo dated 20/6/2012 stating the progress of the work in the 3rd reach. Petitioners had filed I.A.No.8956 of 2012 producing additional Exhibits P34 to P41(a). KWA had filed another memo dated 12/09/2012 indicating the status of the work as on 10/08/2012 which indicates that the construction of the well cum pump house is under progress and work in respect of the raw water pumping main has been re-tendered after splitting into three reaches and further progress has been made in respect of pipe laying for clear water pumping. They have also produced a revised schematic diagram of the water supply scheme. 15. The petitioners have also filed a special argument note on 01/10/2012. Though an Amicus Curiae was appointed to help the petitioners, by memo dated 18/09/2012, the learned Amicus Curiae expressed his intention to withdraw from the case on account of his personal inconvenience. The learned counsel for KWA has also filed an argument note. 16. Heard the 1st petitioner, party in person and also Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned counsel appearing for KWA. The facts involved in the case disclose that the main grievance of the petitioners is that there is a shift of the intake well cum pump house proposed to be constructed for the Alappuzha water supply scheme from Veeyapuram to Pannaikadavu. 16. Heard the 1st petitioner, party in person and also Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned counsel appearing for KWA. The facts involved in the case disclose that the main grievance of the petitioners is that there is a shift of the intake well cum pump house proposed to be constructed for the Alappuzha water supply scheme from Veeyapuram to Pannaikadavu. The site of Veeyapuram was identified as the petitioners' property having an extent of 40.46 ares for which all necessary survey and valuation had been done by the revenue authorities and the petitioners agreed to provide their property for the said scheme. In pursuance of the said arrangement the petitioners had shifted their residence to another place and had given possession of the site to KWA. Contrary to such promises and expectation of the petitioners that their property will be acquired for the said project, with mala fide intentions respondents have shifted the intake well and pumping station from Veeyapuram to a place which is 7 Kms away at Pannaikadavu. The shifting of the site is without any scientific study as directed by this Court in Ext.P5 and it is also their case that the present site is not suitable for constructing an intake well as the water in that area is highly polluted and the main reason for such shifting is to increase the cost of the project and with mala fide intention. 17. On the other hand, it is the contention of KWA that the original proposal for supplying 40 MLD water to Alappuzha Municipality and adjacent Panchayaths at the funding of HUDCO was changed and a new scheme was proposed for supply of 62 MLD of water to Alappuzha Municipality and 8 Panchayaths with a wider range of supply area and for that purpose there had been change in the project plan and the site of the intake well was shifted from Veeyapuram to 6 Kms upstream at Pannaikadavu. It is also contended that these proposals were finalised by Ext.P9 and construction of water treatment plant had been completed and the work in relation to the other areas are in progress including construction of intake well. If there is any restriction in the implementation of the project or if there is any deviation to be made it will affect the project at large and for that they have requested for dismissal of the writ petition. 18. If there is any restriction in the implementation of the project or if there is any deviation to be made it will affect the project at large and for that they have requested for dismissal of the writ petition. 18. On a reading of Ext.P5 judgment which is the back bone of the present writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court while considering the writ petition in which allegations were made against the Government and KWA regarding the problems faced by the people for drinking water and corruption in execution of the project relating to supply of clean drinking water for the people of Alappuzha district, this Court having taken note of the Alappuzha water supply scheme, issued the following directions: "In the above circumstances, we issue the following directions to the Kerala Water Authority and the Government: (1) The Water Authority shall once again make a detailed study of whatever sites that are available for water intake including Veeyapuram site and with the help of scientific data so collected take a final decision on the site to be selected for water intake for the Alappuzha Water Supply Project. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter proceedings for finalisation of tender for the project shall be drawn up. While doing so, the Water Authority shall address itself to the question as to whether MS Steel pipes should be used in the water supply system or GRP pipes, taking into account the specific averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition and if the averments in the writ petition are true MS steel pipes shall be preferred to GRP pipes. Tender proceedings shall be completed within a further period of one month from the date of finalisation of the water intake site as directed above. (2) On finalising the tender proceedings, the Government of Kerala shall ensure that the Water Authority gets finance necessary for implementing the project either by providing guarantee for HUDCO loan or by providing finance from other sources or by themselves. Whatever is necessary for providing adequate funds for enabling the Water Authority to implement the project shall be done within 15 days from the date of finalisation of the tender proceedings. Whatever is necessary for providing adequate funds for enabling the Water Authority to implement the project shall be done within 15 days from the date of finalisation of the tender proceedings. However, the Government shall not wait till the finalisation of tender to start finding ways and means to get at the resources. Within two years thereafter, the entire project for supplying drinking water to the people of Alapuzha Municipality and the surrounding 8 panchayats shall be completed and it must be ensured that the people of these localities get clean drinking water in sufficient quantities through an efficient water supply system without fail, within the above said period." 19. Apparently this judgment came to be passed in a Public Interest Litigation. There was a doubt regarding the suitability of the water intake sites. This Court had observed that it may not be possible for the Court with its limited technical knowledge regarding the proper selection of sources of intake of water for the supply system and as to whether Veeyapuram or Pannaikadavu site is the most suitable site for the project. Therefore, the choice of site for construction of the intake well cum pumping station was purely left at the discretion of KWA after conducting a detailed study. Apparently, Ext.P6, P6(a), P7 and P9 would indicate that study had been conducted in respect of the same and it is recorded in Ext.P9 as under: "Based on the recommendation of the Executive Engineer, after conducting a local enquiry in that area, it is established that the upper layer of the stream is always saline free to a limit of velocity flow. Once the flow velocity reduces than that limit, salinity intrudes into the upper layer. However, when the flow velocity regains in the bottom of the river, salinity disappears in the upper layer. The local habitants have many experiences regarding the existence of salinity for one or two days and then disappearing. This phenomenon can be detected only if the studies continue for a long period at least for one or two years. This phenomenon is not revealed in the present study. The local habitants have many experiences regarding the existence of salinity for one or two days and then disappearing. This phenomenon can be detected only if the studies continue for a long period at least for one or two years. This phenomenon is not revealed in the present study. Another important point is that if such a phenomenon is existing, the proposed scheme has to draw 62 mld (that is 62 million litre per day) this will accelerate the sucking of the bottom saline water and that will spread to the entire area of at least 1 = Km radius. Once this happens, natural removal will take place and it will take years to come to the previous situation. In such a situation it is not appropriate to choose this site as an intake to supply drinking water to a quality affected area like Alleppey Municipality and adjoining Panchayath. So the present site proposed which is about 6.3 Km upstream is the best and there is sufficient flow now to draw the required quantity of water for this scheme. Hence it is decided to fix the intake at Pannayikadavu in Kadapra villages for WSS to Alappuzha Municipality and eight adjoining Panchayaths." 20. The contention that the action of the respondents in shifting the site is actuated by mala fides is not substantiated in any manner. This is a major project for water supply and persons in the know of things and expert Engineers have after conducting a study have chosen a location for establishing an intake well. It might be true that the cost of the project would increase on account of the distance factor. But, when it is said that the water which flows from east to west is being collected from upstream of Veeyapuram site, it cannot be doubted that the level of pollutants and the possibility of salinity will be less than the downstream parameters. In so far as the intention is to supply clean drinking water to the public at large in Alappuzha district, cost cannot be the only factor and merely because there is an increase in the cost factor, this Court cannot assume that there is mala fides on the part of the respondent authorities. The salinity which appears to have been caused at Veeyapuram site at one point of time is not the only reason stated in Ext.P9. The salinity which appears to have been caused at Veeyapuram site at one point of time is not the only reason stated in Ext.P9. It is stated that once the floor velocity reduces the salinity will intrude into the upper level. It is reported that when the proposal of the scheme is to draw 62 million litre per day, there is every possibility of accelerating the sucking of the bottom saline water that will spread into the entire area of atleast 1 = Km radius. If such a situation happens, natural removal will take place only after several years. This finding of the respondent authority is based on their enquiry into the matter. Neither the petitioners or this Court can rule out such a possibility. In fact, the petitioners submit that Ext.P12 series and Ext.P13 issued by the Government officials is enough to prove that there has been no saline intrusion at any point of time at Pampa river near Veeyapuram. In an answer to a question, the public information officer had indicated that as per the employees of the Farm at Veeyapuram during 2003-2009, there is no instance of saline water intrusion. Ext.P13 is a decision of Pulikeezhu block Panchayath and according to them, they have requested the Government to put up the intake well at Veeyapuram and according to them the raw water quality in the said area does not suffer from any pollution. 21. Petitioners also rely upon Ext.P6(a). In fact it is indicated in Ext.P6(a) that chloride content found in the samples collected from Attumaly church kadavu, Veeyapuram in April 2003 may be due to salt water intrusion due to opening of Thannermukkam barrage in early March and it is stated that though certain incident had happened after 30 years for the first time such chances cannot be ruled out. 22. It might be true that at present there is no salinity in respect of the water quality at Veeyapuram as stated by the petitioners and Ext.P12 & 13 reports. But that does not indicate that there is no possibility of saline water intrusion. Enquiry in the locality by the officials reveals that there was saline water intrusion at certain point of time and an apprehension is expressed that when 62 MLD water is being pumped on a day to day basis there is every possibility of saline water intrusion which would lead to disastrous results. Enquiry in the locality by the officials reveals that there was saline water intrusion at certain point of time and an apprehension is expressed that when 62 MLD water is being pumped on a day to day basis there is every possibility of saline water intrusion which would lead to disastrous results. It is to avoid such a possibility which may have other environmental problems that they have chosen to put up the intake well 7 Kms upstream in order to avoid such eventualities. Such an approach cannot be termed as mala fide. 23. Petitioners further contend that the raw water at Pannaikkadavu is polluted. He relies upon Ext.P11(f) issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by Munsiff court in OS No.491/2004. The said report cannot be relied upon as a piece of evidence since veracity of the report is not found to be correct by any court. Apparently the suit was filed by certain other persons and though KWA is a party to the suit it is submitted that the said suit came to be dismissed. 24. The extracts of the statements in the text produced as Ext.P10 are all guidelines in respect of the entire situation of the water intake well and treatment plant. These are all studies which is of general application. But the fact remains that it is for the competent authority and expert agency to decide the location of intake well and treatment plant depending upon the nature of the area concerned, the environmental issues and various other factors especially when water is admittedly becoming a scarce commodity. In that view of the matter it is not open for this Court to rely upon such texts to come to a finding that the water treatment plant should be within a particular distance from the intake well, nor that the choice of site by KWA is actuated by mala fides. 25. In regard to the allegation regarding contamination of water at Pannaikadavu, we do not think that the argument is in any way sustainable. 25. In regard to the allegation regarding contamination of water at Pannaikadavu, we do not think that the argument is in any way sustainable. The contention is that, there is a pilgrim centre in the upstream of the Pannaikadavu site and there is a tributary joining downstream Pannaikadavu site hardly 200 metres away and the polluted water from the tributary converge on to the Pampa river and when water is sucked upstream 200 Metres away at Pannaikadavu intake well site, there is a possibility of the polluted water to enter into the intake well. It is not in dispute that the water flows from east to west and the converging point is 200 Metres towards west and in view of the fact that pumping station is situated upstream from the converging point, this contention may not hold good. It may be true that effluents are flowing to Pampa river; but still fresh water which comes from west to east in Pampa river can be utilised for the purpose of drinking water purpose after proper treatment and therefore even in a case where there is a possibility of some pollution on account of nearness to commercial areas or pilgrim centres, when there is a facility to treat the raw water, the water that will be supplied to the people at large will have to be within the parameters laid down for drinking water purpose. The existence of the tributary joining the converging point being a cause for an alleged pollution, therefore cannot be a reason to deny this project as the intake well and pumping station is still upstream from the said converging point. 26. In regard to the contention that HDPE pipes have been chosen in order to increase the expenses is totally unwarranted. It is also contended that when there was an intention to change the pipes chosen earlier, this Court in Ext.P5 judgment had indicated that MS pipes shall be preferred to GRP pipes and therefore the present attempt to change MS pipes to HDPE pipes is a mala fide attempt also cannot be sustained. As already indicated there is no material to suggest that MS pipes are suitable for the above project and less expensive. Even if the cost of HDPE pipes is high, if it is more suitable for the concerned project, there is nothing wrong in the authorities in choosing such pipes. As already indicated there is no material to suggest that MS pipes are suitable for the above project and less expensive. Even if the cost of HDPE pipes is high, if it is more suitable for the concerned project, there is nothing wrong in the authorities in choosing such pipes. The project is being envisaged by experts in the field and unless there is something glaring and evident from the materials on record to indicate that HDPE pipes had been chosen with ulterior motives or that such a decision is arbitrary and perverse under the circumstances, it may not be possible for this Court to interfere with the choice of pipes for a particular project. Though it is stated that HDPE pipes installed at Thiruvananthapuram Japan Drinking Water project is a failure, there is no material to justify the same. At any rate, from the affidavit filed by KWA, it is clear that HDPE pipe is opted on account of the nature of soil and the quantity of water to be carried and different pipes are used at different localities depending upon such difference in the soil capacity and the quantity of water to be carried. We do not think that such an enquiry is required to be taken in this writ petition to find out the suitability of the pipes used for the project. 27. On a perusal of the various memos filed by the respondents KWA, we find that the work has proceeded to a large extent and in public interest, it is not possible for this Court to interfere in a major water supply project and stall it due to reasons which are not established. Having gone through the records in the case, we are of the view that the respondents have complied with the observations made in Ext.P5 judgment though there is delay in implementation of the project as it could be seen that even there had been a change in the entire scheme on account of the change in respect of the funding agency as well as the project as a whole. Now the work is proceeding in a fast pace, according to KWA and we hope that the work will be completed at the earliest so that it augments fresh water supply to a major portion of Alappuzha district. 28. The petitioners cannot insist that their property should be acquired for the above project. Now the work is proceeding in a fast pace, according to KWA and we hope that the work will be completed at the earliest so that it augments fresh water supply to a major portion of Alappuzha district. 28. The petitioners cannot insist that their property should be acquired for the above project. No such legal rightexists in favour of the petitioners. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief, as prayed for. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.