ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr. Ninad Shah for the petitioner, learned AGP Ms. Shruti Dhruve for the respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Ms.Aishvarya Gupta for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. The present petition has been preferred, inter alia seeking for the following prayers:-

“(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to

(i) hold and declare that action on part of the respondents in not providing potable water connection to the petitioner is illegal, unjustified and violative of fundamental right of the petitioner and further may be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately provide water connection to the petitioner;

(ii) hold and declare that communication of the Corporation at Annexure-L and Annexure-N refusing to provide water connection to the petitioner as illegal, unjust and may be pleased to further direct the respondent-Corporation to immediately provide the water connection to the petitioner;

(iii) direct the respondent-Corporation to bear cost of water charges which the petitioner has bear on account of illegal and arbitrary action on part of the respondent-Corporation;

(iv) be pleased to direct the respondent corporation to recover such cost of water charges from the responsible officers of the corporation.

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to take immediate and prompt steps to provide water connection to the petitioner;

(C) any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice may kindly be granted;”

3. Learned senior advocate Mr. Mehta along with learned advocate Mr. Shah and learned advocate Ms. Aishvarya, would jointly submit that this Court, without going into the aspect of maintainability of the present petition, may dispose of the same on a broad consensus arrived by between the parties inasmuch as the issue was with regard to a direction to the respondent – Corporation to ensure that potable water connection is made available to the present petitioner and whereas the prayer was made in the context of the neighbours of the present petitioner (the respondents claiming that the petitioner is part of a residential housing society, the same being disputed by the petitioner stating that there was no society but a group of persons who have constructed residential premises on a plot) disconnecting/interfering with the water connection of the present petitioner. The consensus being arrived at being that while the drinking water made available by the respondent Nos.2 to 4, first being deposited in a underground common sump and from there being internally pumped to the nine individual houses which form part of the group of houses as referred to herein above and a valve, whereby the flow of water could be restricted, is to be removed. Having regard to the broad consensus, the following directions are issued:

(i) The respondent Corporation shall ensure that the valve, as referred to herein above, in sofar as the water connection to the residence of the present petitioner is concerned, shall be removed. That is to state that the water from the sump, where it is collected, shall flow unhindered to the residence of the present petitioner.

(ii) The respondent Corporation if required shall seek for police protection for complying with the above direction which shall be at the cost of the petitioner.

(iii) It is clarified that the above orders are passed on broad understanding between the parties, more particularly, upon a consensus by the respondent Corporation considering the requirement of the petitioner to have potable drinking water made available and whereas, the order shall not be treated as either the petition being maintainable or the same being treated as a precedent.

4. With the above d