JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. THE learned Single Judge has already allowed the writ petition by directing the respondent-State to provide water connection to the petitioner from Lift Water Supply Scheme, Gudhi Sharli, in case the petitioner approaches the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation & Public Health Department within a period of ten days from the date of the order. The petitioner is dissatisfied with this direction, though in his favour. The argument proceeds that the petitioner had asked for relief to issue directions to the authorities to provide water connection from Pilot Project Drinking Water Scheme. No doubt, the petitioner has asked for that relief in the writ petition but the learned Single Judge has dealt with the said issue and has negatived the claim of the petitioner on the finding that the Pilot Project Drinking Water Scheme, Manpur was meant only for the residents of Manpur Baas and further that the petitioner was supplied water connection from Nibba Nigward. Nevertheless, the learned Single Judge thought it appropriate to mould the relief and issue directions to the respondent-State to provide water connection to the petitioner from Lift Water Supply Scheme. We see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 3. TO get over this position, counsel for the appellant submits that even the Chairman of the Pilot Project Drinking Water Scheme is not resident of Manpur Baas. Nevertheless, he has been provided water connection from Pilot Project Drinking Water Scheme and he is enjoying the said facility. In the first place, no relief has been claimed against the Chairman of the Committee of village Manpur as such. In the absence of any relief against the said Chairperson, the question of entertaining this argument does not arise that too at the stage of LPA. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was right in moulding the relief. No interference is warranted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 4. AFTER this order is dictated, counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to Annexure P-10 and contends that several persons who are not eligible to get water supply from Pilot Project Drinking Water Scheme have been provided that facility, leaving out the petitioner for no tangible reason. No interference is warranted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 4. AFTER this order is dictated, counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to Annexure P-10 and contends that several persons who are not eligible to get water supply from Pilot Project Drinking Water Scheme have been provided that facility, leaving out the petitioner for no tangible reason. For the reasons already recorded hitherto while considering the grievance against the Chairperson of the Committee, even this argument deserves to be rejected for the same reason.