side and having perused the records, we are of the view that imposition of cost as well as compensation on respondents 5 and 6 were absolutely unnecessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. True that the 5th respondent did not have any licence for conducting the catering unit, but the fact remains that during the pendency of the writ petition, he has obtained all valid licence/permission. But the only question is regarding the alleged contamination of the well of the petitioner. This fact, of course, has been projected in the writ petition, but no claim for compensation has been made. Apparently, the amount of cost and compensation has been imposed on respondents 5 and 6 on the ground of pollution. Compensation, of course, can be directed to be paid by the Court under the public law remedy, but it is relevant to note that since there is no claim for compensation in the writ petition, imposing such huge amount as cost and compensation was totally uncalled for. There is no situation warranting payment of such huge amount as cost and compensation. Compensation, as already held, is not claimed by the petitioner and therefore in the absence of adjudication regarding necessity for grant of compensation and sufficient
