Final Order:

1. Heard both sides.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court on 10.07.2026 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2025, confirming the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court below Exhibit 06 in R.C.S. No. 78 of 2024, the original defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 17 have preferred this petition.

3. The controversy pertains to the implementation of water supply scheme of group gram panchayat Dale and operation of motor pump set and other allied instruments installed at well in land Sy. No. 53 of village Holi, Tq. Rajapur, Dist. Ratnagiri. The well in question is being used for supplying the water to constituent villages of group gram panchayat including various localities of village Holi.

4. The petitioners and the respondent No. 2 to 26 are the villagers of Holi, who were entrusted operation of water supply scheme at Holi by passing resolution in Gram Sabha of 22.02.2018. The complaints were received against the petitioners and others that there were lapses in providing water supply to the localities forming part of village Holi. The petitioners and their supporters are stated to have forceably taken away the pump set on 31.07.2024 and damaged pipeline and electric wiring, which is the cause of action for the respondent No. 1 to prefer suit for injunction along with application Exhibit 06 for temporary injunction.

5. The petitioners and others contested the suit and application for temporary injunction on the count that the allegations are false. The respondent No. 1 is guilty of misappropriation and to dodge the action false allegations are leveled. It is further contended that the respondent No. 1 had no locus standi and the water supply scheme was exclusively entrusted to the petitioners. They are stated to be implementing support agency under the Government Resolution dated 04.09.2020.

6. The Trial Court granted temporary injunction vide order dated 23.04.2025, which is confirmed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.07.2026. In this backdrop the present petition has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the Courts below committed error of jurisdiction in holding that the petitioners have taken away the pump set forceably and obstructing water supply scheme. It is contended that pump set was deposited with the Rural Water Supply Department, Rajapur and order of injunction was unwarranted. It is submitted that the petitioners and villagers have contributed for water supply scheme and they are implementing it lawfully. The allegations in the complaint are stated to be false and politically motivated.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 supports concurrent findings of facts. My attention is adverted to the correspondence of the Deputy Engineer with the police station. It is submitted that affidavits of witnesses would corroborate the claim of the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that the petitioners have no exclusive right. The conditions imposed while handing them over the implementation of the scheme are stated to have been violated.

9. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. The application Exhibit 06 filed by the respondent No. 1 was supported by the affidavits. The Deputy Engineer of Rural Water Supply Department, Rajapur complained to the Police Station at Nate that on 31.07.2024 villagers of village Holi unauthorizedly removed the pump set causing interruption in the water supply to various localities. Both Courts below have recorded that prima facie case is made out by the respondent No.1 for granting injunction. I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Courts below.

10. The petitioners were entrusted operation of water supply scheme by resolution dated 22.02.2018 on certain conditions. The petitioners are implementing support agencies under Government Resolution dated 04.09.2020. But they had no right to remove the pump set and disturb the water supply. There can be no justification for the overtact occurred on 31.07.2024.

11. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded that the petitioners should have reported their grievance in lawful manner against the respondent No. 1. I do not find any error of jurisdiction or perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. The water supply scheme is meant for equal distribution of the water to all sectors of group gram panchayat. The respondent No. 1 has approached the Court to ensure that there is smooth distribution of water. No case is made out to cause any interference in the concurrent findings of facts.

12. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is dismissed.

13. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for suspending it for a period of eight weeks so as to enable the parties to approach the Apex Court. It is pointed out that the order of status quo was granted on 10.07.2026 which was up to 10.08.2026.

14. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the request. It is submitted that the petitioners have taken law in their hand and creating obstruction in the distribution of water. There is every possibility of taking disadvantage of any protection granted to them.

15. I have already observed in my judgment that respondent no. 1 Sarpanch, Group Grampanchayat and others are obliged to oversee equal distribution of the water in the constituent villages and localities. The overt act of the respondents has already been castigated by the Appellate Court as well as this Court. The request for status quo or protection stands refused.