A.S. Oka, J.

Both the petitioners who are claiming to be nonprofit and voluntary associations registered under the Societies' Registration Act, 1860 have filed the present petition making a grievance about the use of quantity of water by seventh to ninth respondents-Cricket Associations and, especially for the cricket matches of the Indian Premier League (for short “IPL”). The sixth respondent is the Board of Control for Cricket in India which is the body which controls sports of cricket in India. The seventh, eighth and ninth respondents are Mumbai Cricket Association, Maharashtra Cricket Association and Vidarbh Cricket Association respectively. The third to fifth respondents are the Municipal Corporations of the cities of Mumbai, Nagpur and Pune. The first respondent-State of Maharashtra has set up the second respondent under the provisions of the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act, 2005 (for short “the Act of 2005”). When this petition was filed in April 2016, there were drought conditions in the State of Maharashtra and there was an acute shortage of water. The first prayer in this petition is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing that no matches of Indian Premier League should be allowed to be held in the State of Maharashtra. This prayer is confined to the year 2016. This prayer was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 13th April 2016 by which of IPL matches were ordered to be shifted outside the State. The second prayer is for enjoining the first and second respondents to ensure that the water proposed to be used by the fifth to ninth respondents is preserved. A direction is sought that first priority for utilization of the water is domestic use for drinking, cooking and hygiene and sanitary use including live stock for agriculture. The next prayer is for seeking directions against the second respondent-Regulatory Authority to follow the sections 11 and 12 of the said Act of 2005. Prayers (e) and (f) are based on the Water Policy of the Maharashtra State. Both these prayers seek a direction in support of the plea that the State Government is bound by its own Water Policy and, therefore, it is contended that the State should reconsider its decision of allowing sixth to ninth respondents to use the water by treating them as falling in the category (e)/(d)’ of the Priority List forming part of the Water Policy.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that even going by the case made out by the respondents, the use of water by the respondents Cricket Associations for maintaining cricket grounds and pitches and for conducting matches will fall in the category of recreational use which is the second last priority in paragraph4 of the Water Policy. He invited our attention to the affidavits filed on record and the material placed on record. He pointed out that huge quantity of water of not less than 60 lakh liter is required to maintain cricket grounds and pitches of the seventh to ninth respondents. He pointed out that the State Government and the Municipal Corporations have given a go-bye to the list of priorities by supplying water to the said respondents and, therefore, the Municipal Corporations are violating the principle of equitable distribution of water. He pointed out that if equitable distribution is to be achieved, from the public resources, water cannot be supplied for holding cricket matches and for maintaining cricket grounds and pitches of seventh to ninth respondents.

3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the sixth respondent invited our attention to the affidavits-in-reply filed by the said respondents. He pointed out affidavit dated 12th April 2016 of Professor Ratnakar Shetty filed on behalf of the sixth respondent in which the stand of the sixth respondent is made clear. He pointed out that preliminary objections have been raised in the affidavit dated 7th April 2016 of Professor Ratnakar Shetty. He pointed out that the stand of the seventh