JUDGMENT : M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. Mr. A.K. Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader, appears on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Chandrasekar, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the third respondent. 2. The petitioner came forward to file this writ petition as a “Public Interest Litigation” stating among other things that Thethoor Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District, consists of hamlets, namely, T. Mettupatti, T. Nadupatti, T. Narayanapuram, T. Siruthopphu, T. Kolingipatti, T. Gengamuthoor and T. Kilavikulam and those villages are located on the foothills of Sirumalai mountains. According to the petitioner, in Thethoor Village a “Oorani, a water body/pond”, called as T. Kilavikulam, is situated and it is spread over to an extent of 22 cents. Originally, the land in which the water body is located, was a private land and a benevolent villager had bequeathed the same for public purpose, through a Will, imposing a condition that the said water body/pond shall be utilized for the storage of water in order to feed animals, cattles and also for drinking purposes. The petitioner would further aver that the said water body is maintained by Thethoor Village Panchayat for several decades and one Sathaiyan Thevar @ Periyakaruppan and his sister Alayapillai had also given 4.5 acres of lands, in the year 1985, for the expansion of the said water body, in order to augment more water. The petitioner would also state that the water will reach the said water body during rainy seasons from Sirumalai mountains and also through feeder canals of Kalankarai channels and the excess water from the water body overflows to Pappankulam via Siruthopur feeder canal and in turn, it goes to Kadaynayakkan Kanmai at T. Mettupatti and from there, flows to Kuttladampatti, Katchaikatti and finally goes to Cholavanthan and as per Revenue Records, a feeder canal for irrigation purpose, is also located in Survey Nos.209 to 216, admeasuring to an extent of 15 acres, which lies adjacent to the eastern side of Kilavikulam Oorani. 3. 3. The grievance now expressed by the petitioner, who is also espousing the cause of the villagers, is that the Block Development Officer, Alanganallur, Madurai District, namely, the third respondent herein, is trying to build shutters on Kilavikulam Oorani, without holding any Grama Sabha Meeting or obtaining consent from the local authorities and it has been seriously and strongly objected by the local residents, on the ground that in the event of construction of shutters on Oorani, the water body would get obliterated and as a consequence, the grazing would not have any water and so also, the local residents will be divested of the said water for drinking and agricultural purposes. The petitioner in this regard, submitted a representation, dated 13.11.2017, followed by yet another representation, dated 15.11.2017, to the first respondent and inspite of receipt and acknowledgment of those representations, the construction of shutters is going on, at a greater speed and if it is constructed, the water stored in the water body would be completely drained and hence, the present writ petition is filed as a “Public Interest Litigation”. 4. The writ petition was entertained and notices were ordered and the third respondent has filed the counter affidavit along with the typed-set of documents. 5. The third respondent in the counter affidavit would aver that Kilavikulam Minor Irrigation Tank is situated at Thethoor Village, Alanganallur Panchayat Union and as per the announcement made by the Government of Tamil Nadu, under Rule 110, a decision has been taken to improve the minor irrigation tanks in the State of Tamil Nadu, under Phase-II of THAI Scheme 2016-2017 and the main object of the programme is to ensure comprehensive rehabilitation of minor irrigation tanks, which are under the control of Panchayat Unions, so as to restore the tanks to their full capacity and augment the storage of water and accordingly, Kilavikulam Minor Irrigation Tank was taken up and administrative sanction was also accorded, vide proceedings dated 02.03.2017, made in Na.Ka.No.1318/2016/B7, by the first respondent, which in turn, came to be issued on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.129, Rural Development and Administration (SGS1), dated 25.10.2016. The excavation work of the said tank is commenced with the estimated cost of Rs.11.12 Lakhs and the entire work is supervised by the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Madurai, by allotting the civil work through tender process and the main objective of deepening the tank is to increase water storage, which would be utilised for agricultural production under the minor irrigation tanks by conserving water and increasing the productivity and also to improve the living standards of farmers, especially, the persons with small holdings. Insofar as the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that in the event of construction of shutters, the water would be completely drained out, the third respondent, in paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit, would state that the nature of storage of water to the said tank flows from the supply channel to Thethoor Kilavikulam Minor Irrigation Tank and it flows from Valaiapatti-Kattunaickan Kanmai and thereafter, the excess water would flow through the sluice placed at 80 metres in length from the tank and would further aver that the Kilavikulam Minor Irrigation Tank also receives water from other supply tanks. 6. In paragraph No.6 of counter affidavit, the technical details as to the construction, are also given and the third respondent took a stand that the object of the construction of sluice, is not to drain entire storage of water, but to retain a minimum level of water in the silt level and the storage of pond water is always available and only the excess water alone would flow through the sluice and the third respondent also has undertaken that depth storage of water remains in the tank and therefore, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, is fully unfounded. 7. The third respondent also took a stand that only in the interest of the encroachers, the present writ petition, styled as a “Public Interest Litigation” is filed and the petitioner has no subsisting public interest at all and prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 8. Mr. 7. The third respondent also took a stand that only in the interest of the encroachers, the present writ petition, styled as a “Public Interest Litigation” is filed and the petitioner has no subsisting public interest at all and prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 8. Mr. F. Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the materials placed before it and would submit that the construction of sluices and draining of the excess water is not technically feasible, for the reason that in the event of the construction of sluices and draining of the water, the water body would completely dry and in that event, not only the cattle, but also the nearby residents, who are depending upon the said tank, are put to grave hardship and difficulty and as such, it leads to stall in the supply of water to the people of Thethoor Village and hence, prays for appropriate orders, directing the respondents to halt the said project/construction. 9. This Court heard the submission of Mr. A.K. Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, who would submit that due to benevolent and good faith only, the tank is being desilted and sluice is being constructed under THAI scheme 2016-2017 and it is purely for public interest and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit as well as the typed-set of documents, which contains the technical details and would submit that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is purely unfounded for the reason that the construction of sluices is only to drain the excess water and depth storage of minimum level of water is also maintained and in future, there is no possibility of the water body going to be dried completely and the interest of the local residents as well as the cattle population has been taken care of and periodical monitoring will also be done, as to the construction of the sluices and the maintenance of sluices and hence, he prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 11. This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it. 12. 11. This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it. 12. It is not in dispute that under THAI Scheme 2016-2017, the Government took a conscious decision to restore the water bodies to the full capacity and utilise the same for various purposes and accordingly, Kilavikulam Minor Irrigation Tank has been taken up and necessary administrative and financial sanction has also been accorded and the work had also commenced and the same is also evident from the photographs produced before this Court. The primordial submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the said project is not technically viable and in the event of construction of sluices, the water stored in the tank, would be completely drained out and the said fact is seriously refuted by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. The construction of sluices and the deepening of the water body is technically, a scheme under Phase-II of THAI Scheme 2016-2017 and the third respondent, in his counter affidavit, is very categorical that in the event of the purpose of construction of sluices is only to drain out the excess water and the depth storage level would always be maintained and periodical inspections would be carried out, as to the quality of the construction being made and thereafter, efforts would be taken to see both storage and depth level is maintained. The said undertaking, is placed on record. The respondents shall see to that the water body is not obliterated and sluice to be maintained with storage level of minimum water subject to natural causes for the benefit of the cattle population as well as benefit of the local residents and agriculturists. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.