JUDGMENT : F. M. Reis, J. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the grievance of the petitioners is that though orders have been passed by the Health Officer in terms of Section 94(A)(1)(a) of the Goa Public Health Act, 1985, by orders dated 25.05.2016, 14.07.2016 and 28.01.2016 however, no action has been taken by the concerned Department in complying with such directions. 5. During the course of the hearing of the above petition, the petitioners were called upon to suggest the proposed manner in which such domestic water connection can be granted to the residential premises of the petitioners. Accordingly, a crockie was submitted by the petitioners disclosing such route for releasing the water connection to them. 6. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Advocate General has pointed out that there can be alternate routes by which such water connection can be released to the petitioners. The modality of working to the release the water through a specific route is a matter which the respondent no.1 would have to consider on its own merits in accordance with law. But the fact remains that there are orders passed by the Health Officer in terms of Section 94(A)(1)(a) of the Goa Public Health Act, 1985 which have to be implemented by the respondent no.1. After all the rights of the third party, if any, have been duly protected in terms of the said provisions. 7. In such circumstances, we dispose of the above petition by directing the respondent no.1 to proceed to release the water connection to the petitioners in terms of the said orders dated 25.05.2016, 14.07.2016 and 28.01.2016 as expeditiously as possible in the light of the observations made herein above within three months from today in accordance with law. Needless to say, the petitioners shall bear all the expenses of laying such pipeline as estimated by the respondent no.1. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.