Pynhun Suchiang, D/O (L) Soren Lamare vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By The Executive Engineer (WR) Cum Member Secretary, District Level Committee On Ground Water Resources East Khasi Hills District, Shillong & Ors.

I.P. Mukerji, CJ

The appellant wants a private borewell in her place of residence. The respondent authorities have denied her permission to make this borewell, the ground being the existence of a public borewell, namely, PHED borewell to supply water to the premises of the appellant. The appellant’s complaint is that such supply is almost absent and that a private borewell is necessary. The respondent authorities maintain that the supply is sufficient.

On these questions of fact, the instant writ application was filed. It was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 18th April, 2024 by a learned single judge of this Court.

The writ petitioner appeals to us from that order.

We find no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned single judge “giving liberty to the writ petitioner to further pursue the matter with the authorities with regard to insufficient and irregular supply of water from the borewell.”

Nevertheless, we are of the view that if the appellant is to be relegated to the respondents to decide the question, the appropriate authority to take the decision should be indicated. We are not minded to assign this task to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as, having already rejected the appellant’s application they are likely to have a predisposed mind. Accordingly, we direct the Secretary, PHE department, Government of Meghalaya, himself or by an officer designated by him to decide the following questions:

(i) Is the supply of water from the PHED borewell sufficient to meet the requirements of the appellant?

(ii) If insufficient, to what extent is it insufficient?

(iii) If the finding is that the supply of the PHED borewell is insufficient then how could the required quantity of water by the appellant be met; by constructing a private borewell or by any other means?

The adjudicating authority should bear in mind that the requirement of water for drinking, washing toilet and other purposes is absolutely essential for a human being and that such right is now recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The above adjudicating authority will bear the above observation in mind and answer the questions before it and pronounce a decision on water supply to the appellant by a reasoned order upon hearing the necessary parties within six weeks of communication of this order.

The impugned judgment and order is modified to the above effect.

The appeal is, accordingly disposed of.

No order as to costs.