ORDER : 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Himanshu Kumar Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General representing the State of Jharkhand is present. No one also appears on behalf of the Mining Area Development Authority. 2. The prayer in this writ application is for a direction upon the respondents to remove the public water tap installed upon the land of the petitioner without his consent and to abstain from providing water connection to illegal occupants. 3. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioner enterprise is situated at Jharia of Fatehpur and the factory is concerned with manufacturing of Fire Bricks etc. It has further been stated that the respondent no. 3 has provided water connection to some unauthorized and illegal occupants who have occupied part of the premises in question and connection has been provided without following the norms and procedure required. It has been repeatedly claimed in the writ application that the illegal occupants are occupying the factory premises. 4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 reveals to a certain extent the truthfulness of the accusation made by the writ petitioner to the effect that an inquiry was conducted in respect to the aforesaid fact and it come to light that the factory was closed due to precarious financial situation and resultantly some of the labourers along with their families are staying in the factory premises illegally and for which proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was also initiated apart from institution of a First Information Report being Dhanuadih O.P. P.S. Case No. 119/2008. 5. The respondent-MADA has also filed its counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the area in which the pipeline was provided seems to be beyond the premises of the factory and therefore consent from the owner of the factory was not at all required to be taken. It has also stated in the said counter affidavit that the petitioner enterprise has vested to the B.C.C.L., which fact however has been denied in the reply to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in which it has been stated that a proceeding under the provision of Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant Act, 1971 was initiated which however was dismissed and was affirmed up to this Court. 6. 6. The dispute as could be deciphered from the various affidavits filed on behalf of both the sides is that the factory premises is being occupied by illegal entrants and perhaps on account of such grievance the petitioner has preferred the present writ application. The respondent no. 3 which is the concerned authority within the mining area to provide the water connection has categorically denied that the same exists within the precinct(s) of the petitioner factory as it has been stated that the dispute primarily is on account of the illegal occupants of the factory in question for which criminal proceedings were also instituted. Moreover there appears to be a dispute with respect to the fact as to whether the pipeline is within the factory premises or outside its purview. 7. In view of the above, therefore, there being a disputed question of fact coupled with the apparent grievance of the petitioner regarding the illegal occupants of the factory premises the said grievance cannot be redressed in this writ application in view of what has been stated above. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application, which is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.