Judgment 1. The petitioner though individually is running a cattle farm, he seeks for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to provide water connection to his cattle firm. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to pay all the deposits which are required to be made and without considering the same, the third respondent failed to give water connection to the petitioner's firm and therefore the petitioner is before this Court. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, the following stand has been taken. “3.I further submit that in our village from the over head tank in Ganeshpuram, drinking water is being supplied to Ganeshpuram and Chinnanachiyapuram areas. On 06.02.2012, the public of Chinnanachiyapuram complained that they have not been supplied drinking water for the past 10 days and based on their complaint, when Village Assistant inspected the water lines on 07.02.2014, he found that the petitioner had illegally tapped the drinking water to his milk farm by drawing the water from the Panchayat water line illegally with the use of a electric motor by cutting the Panchayat road. Immediately the Village Assistant had directed the petitioner's wife and his brother-in-law Mr.Ramanathan who were present there at the time of inspection to close the illegal connection. The said illegal tapping of the water was immediately reported to the 2nd respondent herein and it was also specifically requested by this respondent with the 2nd respondent to depute the Panchayat Union Engineer and the fitter to inspect the place to assess the illegal act of the petitioner. 4. While that being so, one Mr.Ramanathan had sent an application in the name of the petitioner along with a DD for Rs.2,000/- calling it as a deposit towards the supply of drinking water to the petitioner's milk farm. As no water service connection was provided to the petitioner as alleged in the above application, this respondent on 10.02.2014, had returned the application sent in the name of the petitioner along with the enclosures and DD informing the petitioner that the so far the Panchayat had not provided any water connection to the petitioner's milk farm as alleged in his application. The said reply sent to the petitioner got returned as the petitioner refused as the petitioner refused to receive the same in spite sending it twice to him and the postal endorsement will evident the same. 5. Thereafter this respondent had lodged a Police Complaint against the petitioner for his illegal act of tapping drinking water from the Panchayat water line by damaging the Panchayat road without any permission and the receipt issued by the Kallal Police Station is produced herewith and subsequently when this respondent tried to close the illegal connection the petitioner resisted the same and hence, this respondent reported the same to the second respondent and the AD Panchayat, to which the 2nd respondent had directed the Police to provide adequate police protection to close the illegal connection drawn by the petitioner and with the help of the Police, the illegal connection drawn by the petitioner was closed on 22.02.2014 ultimately on the directions of the 2nd respondent. 6. The petitioner without any permission on his own had drawn water from the Panchayat Water line illegally, which had been closed by this respondent with the help of the Police and when that being so suppressing all the above facts had filed the present writ petition as this respondent refused to provide water connection to the petitioner's milk farm in spite of his repeated representations just to wriggle out from the criminal prosecution. The sending of a representation to this respondent on 24.10.2008 as averred in para 7 of the petitioner's affidavit itself shows the deceitfulness of the petitioner and he had approached this Court not only by suppressing the facts, but also with unclean hands seeking the equitable remedy, which he does not deserve and his writ petition had to be dismissed for this reason alone.” 7. In the light of the above facts, it is evident that the petitioner has illegally drawn water meant for domestic supply by damaging the Panchayat Road and by drawing the illegal connection, thereby created law and order situation and police protection has been given in that area and in order to wriggle out from the criminal prosecution, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 8. These facts have not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 9. When the petitioner is running a Commercial Establishment, he is not entitled for water connection meant for domestic supply. 8. These facts have not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 9. When the petitioner is running a Commercial Establishment, he is not entitled for water connection meant for domestic supply. That apart, the antecedents of the petitioner is not good and he has illegally tapped the drinking water and thus, the relief sought for cannot be granted. Moreover, since these facts are not at all fully set out in the writ petition, the petitioner is bound to pay the cost to the third respondent Panchayat. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) to the third respondent Panchayat, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(md).No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed.