K. Meenakshi Suresh vs The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai and Others

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—These three Writ Petitions are directed against the order in G.O.Ms. No. 168, Public Works (P1) Department, dated

02 July, 2012 on the file of the first respondent and the consequential orders dated 09 January, 2013 on the file of the fifth respondent, whereby

and whereunder, the Government revoked the permission granted to the petitioners to draw water from Manjalar river and directed them to

remove electric motors and accessories installed for taking water.

BACKGROUND:

The petitioners are the owners of property situated at Devathanapatty Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District. The petitioners have planted

coconut trees in large numbers. Since sufficient water was not available, the petitioners submitted applications before the District Collector, Theni

to draw water from Manjalar river. The request was favourably considered by the Government on the strength of the recommendation made by

the District Collector. The petitioners have been taking water since 2000.

While so, the petitioners received a notice dated 09 January, 2013 from the fifth respondent stating that the permission given to draw water has

already been cancelled by the Government vide order in G.O.Ms. No. 168, Public Works (P1) Department, dated 02 July, 2012 and as such,

they had to remove the electric motors and other accessories, within a period of one week. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.

According to the petitioners, they have no other water source for irrigating the agricultural land. The impugned Government Order was passed

without giving them a reasonable opportunity to submit their response. In short, the petitioners alleged violation of principles of natural justice.

The fourth respondent filed a separate counter-affidavit in all these Writ Petitions. According to the fourth respondent, the petitioners were

drawing water from Manjalar river for irrigation purpose by using 3 HP electric motor pumpsets. The District administration received complaints

from the local agriculturists against such indiscriminate drawal of water from Manjalar river. This made the first respondent to initiate proceedings

against the petitioners. The first respondent directed the District Collector vide proceedings dated 03 May, 2001, to enquire the objection received

from the local people. The District Collector issued notice to the petitioners on 21 May, 2001 fixing the enquiry at 03.00 p.m., on 01 June, 2001.

The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 1575 of 2013, received notice on behalf of all the petitioners and requested the District Collector to adjourn the

enquiry. The District Collector, thereafter, issued a fresh notice on 08 June, 2001 fixing the enquiry at 04.00 p.m., on 18 June, 2001. However,

the petitioners failed to appear before the District Collector. This made the Tahsildar, Periyakulam, to issue a notice to the petitioners on 02 July,

2001 calling upon them to appear before the District Collector at 03.30 p.m., on 06 July, 2001. The petitioners, pursuant to the said notice,

submitted a representation before the Collector on 18 June, 2001, requesting the authority to permit them to draw water from Manjalar river. In

the meantime, a Writ Petition was filed by Vivashayigal Munetra Sangam (Nagarvalli Old Ayacut), challenging the Government Orders giving

permission to take water from the river. The Government considered the report submitted by the District Collector and ultimately, passed the

Government Order, dated 14 September, 2000. According to the Executive Engineer, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners and as

such, it cannot be said that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the local people have been taking water from river without permission. However, the

petitioners, being the law abiding people, sought permission from the Government. According to the learned counsel, in case the petitioners are not

permitted to take water from Manjalar river, the entire crops would be destroyed.

The learned Additional Government Pleader justified the action taken by the respondents. According to the learned Additional Government

Pleader, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners to submit their objections before passing the impugned orders.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:

The petitioners were given permission to draw water from Manjalar river by using 3 HP electrical motor pumpsets, to save the coconut trees in

their lands, subject to certain conditions vide orders in G.O.Ms. No. 491, Public Works (P1) Department, dated 14 September, 2000, G.O.Ms.

No. 492, Public Works (P1) Department, dated 14 September, 2000, and G.O.Ms. No. 493, Public Works (P1) Department, dated 14

September, 2000, respectively. Thereafter, the Government received complaints from the local people and the same resulted in taking action

against the petitioners. The High Court passed an order in W.P. Nos. 18490 and 18491 of 2000 on 10 January, 2001, directing the District

Collector, Theni to conduct enquiry and to take a decision with respect to drawal of water. The counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent

clearly shows that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners to submit their response. The petitioners now alleges violation of principles of

natural justice. The order passed by the first respondent dated 02 July, 2012, refers to the report submitted by the District Collector, Theni. The

District Collector, in his report, submitted that the petitioners are now irrigating the lands by taking water from their own well.

The learned counsel for the petitioners admitted the factum of digging wells by the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the water from

the wells alone is not sufficient for irrigation.

The petitioners wanted water from Manjalar river. The petitioners were given permission as early as on 14 September, 2000. They had drawn

water at least for few years before passing the order of cancellation dated 02 July, 2012. Even after passing the impugned order cancelling the

permission, the petitioners enjoyed the right till issuing the notice by the fifth respondent on 09 January, 2013. The counter-affidavit filed by the

fourth respondent clearly gives an indication that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners to submit their objections. The petitioners have

not filed any rejoinder disputing the statement made by the fourth respondent. The statement regarding notice and reasonable opportunity given to

the petitioners to submit their objections require to be accepted.

The petitioners have no case that the Government have no power to cancel the permission granted to draw water from the river. It is trite law

that the authority, having the power to give permission, equally has the power to cancel such permission. The water, being a scarce commodity in

the concerned area, cannot be given for the exclusive use of certain individuals. The villagers have raised serious objections against drawal of water

by the land owners like the petitioners. The Government appears to have taken a conscious decision to cancel the permission in larger public

interest. In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.