Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to test the quality of the overhead tank constructed at Puthantharuvai to Karisal Road, Puthantharuvai, Sathankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District and to direct the respondents 4 and 5 to construct a tank with better quality, for the welfare of the people living at Puthantharuvai Village. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has filed this writ petition, as a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner is residing in Thirupani Puthantharuvai Village, Sathankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. The said village is situated within three kilometers from the seashore. The respondents 4 and 5 had constructed a tank, to provide for drinking water to the residents living in Puthantharuvai Village and the nearby areas. The overhead tank constructed for the said purpose is situated at Puthantharuvai to Karisal Road. 4. The learned counsel had further submitted that the entire work, relating to the construction of overhead tank, had been completed within 15 days. No proper foundation had been laid for the construction of the said tank. Further, the respondents 4 and 5 had used salt water for building the overhead tank. As such, the overhead tank built by the respondents 4 and 5 is not of a very good quality. Therefore, as the overhead tank constructed by the respondents 4 and 5 is likely to cause danger to the people living in the panchayat, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as a public Interest Litigation. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and on a perusal of the records available, we do not find any reason to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. The allegations made by the petitioner had not been substantiated with sufficient records. Further, there is no evidence placed before this Court to show that the overhead tank had been built with low quality materials. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.