JUDGMENT 1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "A] By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 26.06.2018 as well as the order dated 20.06.2019 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. B] By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the tale cluster/proportionate distributor at the petitioners chak 3 G as sanctioned earlier may be ordered to be continued, and if any APM machine outlet is installed the same may kindly be declared illegal and be ordered to be removed." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the chak of the petitioners is situated in the tail of the Minor alongwith Chak 4G MLA Minor, which ends here. Learned counsel further submits that the tail cluster has been constructed and the total area of both the chaks i.e. 3G Badi and 4G is equal. Learned counsel also submits that there is no pressure and velocity at the tail and the change in design of the petitioners' outlet vide order dated 26.06.2018 is prejudicing the water right of the petitioners. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated 13.09.2019 passed in the instant petition, which reads as under: "Upon perusal of the order of the State Government passed on 26.06.2018, it transpires that installation of APM machine was permitted at 3G Badi, subject to ensuring the following two essential conditions : - 1- lacaf/kr fdlh Hkh dk'rdkj dk fgr izHkkfor ugha gks jgk gSA 2- mDr la'kks/ku ls vU; eks?kksa ij dksbZ foijhr izHkko ugha gksxkA Neither the order of Chief Engineer dated 20.06.2019, impugned in the present writ petition, nor the technical reports submitted by the Executing Engineer (dated 29.05.2019 and 31.05.2019) bring to fore the facts clearly, as to whether after installation of APM the petitioners would be getting their sanctioned share of water or not and whether the installation of APM machine would adversely affect the position of Moghas. It is informed that APM machine has been installed. The respondent-Department is directed to get this exercise carried out by the Superintending Engineer - respondent No.3 and furnish a report addressing the above two concerns, shown in the above referred order dated 26.06.2018. It is informed that APM machine has been installed. The respondent-Department is directed to get this exercise carried out by the Superintending Engineer - respondent No.3 and furnish a report addressing the above two concerns, shown in the above referred order dated 26.06.2018. The report be furnished before this Court on or before the next date of hearing. For the purpose of preparing the above report, the concerned Superintending Engineer shall measure the water received by the petitioners and respondents without installation of APM machine and after the installation of APM machine. List the matter on 26.09.2019, along with connected matter." 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a categorical affidavit has been filed by the concerned authority of the State, in which it was stated that the outlet of the petitioners is drawing 12.45% excess discharge than authorized. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court is satisfied with the affidavit of the concerned authority of the State, which states that the petitioners are drawing 12.45% excess discharge, coupled with the statement of learned counsel for the respondents that no prejudice shall be caused to the authorized discharge available to the petitioners by the act of the respondents. 7. This Court is thus, of the opinion that since the very basis of the challenge goes away in light of the aforementioned affidavit filed by the State, therefore, no case for interference is made out. 8. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.