JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioners in O.P. No. 14278 of 1996 and 12973 of 1996 have challenged the validity of the Land Acquisition notification issued by the Special Tahsildar (LA) General, under S.4(1) read with S.17 of the Land Acquisition Act dispensing with S.5A enquiry under the Act. They are also seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the report made by the British Overseas Development Administration, BODA. According to the petitioners their report discloses that only 60% capacity of the existing pipeline is being utilised and with the help of Booster stations at Kalamassery 100% capacity of the existing pipeline can be utilised. Report also indicated that both the 42" and 36" pipeline laid along the pipeline road are in good condition. The total implementation cost for improving the quantity of drinking water as worked out in the report is Rs.11 crores and 64 lakhs. Additional quantity of water which could be brought to Ernakulam-Cochin area as per the proposal suggested in the report is 43.5 mld. It is their case that the report submitted by the BODA was approved by the Corporation of Cochin and the State Government. 2. Petitioners in O.P. No. 12973 of 1996 relied on the report submitted by the Kerala Industrial and Technical Consulting Organisation, KITCO, which was presented in a seminar organised by the Malayala Manorama Cochin 2000 A.D. held on 25.2.1996. Report also gives details of viable alternate schemes for increased water supply with such less costs and which could be carried out expeditiously in a much shorter time with better results and greater augmentation of water supply. It is their case that in the meeting held on 29.12.1995, officers of the Water Authority stated that pipeline would be drawn only through the existing pipeline and after acquiring land at a width of 8 metrs. However, the complaint of the petitioners is that later Kerala Water Authority backed out from the said proposal. Same is the contention of counsel for the petitioner in OP No. 7243 of 1996, as well. 3. However, the main legal contention raised by petitioners is that respondents have committed a grave error in invoking the emergency clause. According to them, the alleged purpose for invoking emergency clause is to augment the supply of drinking water at the earliest. Same is the contention of counsel for the petitioner in OP No. 7243 of 1996, as well. 3. However, the main legal contention raised by petitioners is that respondents have committed a grave error in invoking the emergency clause. According to them, the alleged purpose for invoking emergency clause is to augment the supply of drinking water at the earliest. However, the same cannot be achieved through the scheme formulated by the Water Authority, since it will take at least 5 years for completion. According to them the purpose of impugned notification is not to augment the supply of drinking water but to widen the pipeline road which connects Alwaye and Kochi, so as to gain better access to the International Airport at Nedumbassery. It is stated the scheme was formulated in 1991. The specific proposal to invoke the emergency clause was made in December, 1995. The impugned notification was issued only in August, 1996. The long delay coupled with the extraneous purpose for which S.17 has been invoked would demonstrate that the impugned notification is arbitrary and ultra vires S.17 of the Act. Counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Seshagiri Mailer v. Tahsildar, 1964 K.L.T. 54 and contended that under S.17(4) of the Act, the Government have to form an opinion about the applicability of S.17(1) and 17(2). And when they so form an opinion and decide to dispense with the provisions of S.5A they must be fully aware that a very valuable right statutorily conferred on a citizen to object to the acquisition proposed is taken away. It is contended S.5A gives only 30 days time to a person affected or interested to file his objections to the proposed acquisition by a notification under S.4(1). Therefore any urgency that demands a dispensation with S.5A must necessarily be an urgency which will not brook a delay of 30 days. In other words, it is contended the statute itself impliedly speaks about the circumstances under which the dispensation can be made. An urgency to suit the convenience of the Government and at the same time depriving the citizen of a very valuable right, is not the one contemplated by the Act. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh. An urgency to suit the convenience of the Government and at the same time depriving the citizen of a very valuable right, is not the one contemplated by the Act. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh. (1980) 2 SCC 471 and contended that compulsory taking of a man's property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and pre-emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons. Save in real urgency where public interest does not brook even the minimum time need to give a hearing land acquisition authorities should not, having regard to Art.14 and 19, burke an enquiry under S.17 of the Act. Here a slumbering process, pending for years and suddenly exciting itself into immediate forcible taking, makes a travesty of emergency power. The indefensible resort to S.17 is evidence of the length to which the executive would go to come to terms with men wielding political power. Counsel also relied on the decision in Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 133, and contended that the formation of opinion under S.17(4) is a subjective matter. The mind of the Officer or authority concerned has really to be directed towards formation of an opinion on the need to dispense with the inquiry under S.5A of the Act. Nevertheless, that opinion has to be based upon some relevant materials in order to pass the test which courts do impose. There may also be cases where the mind of the authority concerned has not been applied at all, due to misunderstanding of the law or some other reason, to what was legally imperative for it to consider. It is the case of counsel for the petitioners that there has not been application of mind by the respondents and there is no reason to exclude the applicability of S.5 A of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. It is the case of counsel for the petitioners that there has not been application of mind by the respondents and there is no reason to exclude the applicability of S.5 A of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Kerala Water Authority, as well as Government and Acquisition Authority, It was pointed out the augmentation of the Kochi Water Supply Scheme was conceived by the Kerala Water Authority to meet the acute scarcity of drinking water to the people in the Kochi area, mainly the city of Kochi, 5 surrounding municipalities and 25 panchayats suburban to Kochi city. The Water Authority prepared a scheme under Kerala Urban Development Project. Project report was prepared with the assistance of Tata Consulting Engineers. Since this major project could not be taken up by the Kerala Water Authority, the adhoc augmentation project has been taken up under the loan assistance scheme of HUDCO. The adhoc project included the construction of a new water treatment plant of 35 million litres per day capacity at Aluva adjacent to the existing water treatment plant; laying of a new pumping main of 1200 mm (4 feet) diameter pipe from Aluva to Elamkulam covering the villages of Aluva West, Aluva East, Thrikkakara North, Vazhakkala and Edappaly South in Aluva and Kanayannoor Taluk, among various other words. The main component of the scheme is laying 1200 mm pumping main from Aluva Treatment Plant to Elamkulam for a total length of 16.5 KMs. Its first reach on a length of 2.25 KMs. starts from Aluva Treatment Plant and ends at a point south of Nirmala School. Remaining portion is along the existing pipeline road through its eastern side. For the said purpose the land beside the existing pipeline road is necessary to be acquired for a width of 8 metres. In the year 1990, the Tata Consulting Engineers were entrusted with the task of preparing long term plan to resolve the drinking water problem in three cities, namely, Thiruvananthapuram, Cochin and Calicut. The intention of the Government of Kerala was to seek financial assistance through the Government of India, from World Bank for implementation of multi component urban development projects in these three cities under the Kerala Urban Development Project. 5. The intention of the Government of Kerala was to seek financial assistance through the Government of India, from World Bank for implementation of multi component urban development projects in these three cities under the Kerala Urban Development Project. 5. The general objectives of the study were to effect systematic improvements in the existing water supply system in these areas in order to meet the long term requirement of increasing future population. The specific objectives were to study the existing water supply system and suggest measures required to enhance the efficiency of the existing system, to identify cost effective works for the augmentation of the supply and distribution of safe water to the consumers, and to determine level and structure of water tariff to effect full recovery of the investment and annual recurring cost. The Tata Consulting Engineers had submitted their report in January, 1993. The project exports are mainly technical reports and are prepared based on the requirement of each project and after consulting various departments, local bodies, etc. Since there were objections to the proposal the District Collector convened a meeting consisting of landowners, local members of the legislative Assembly and the officials of the Kerala Water Authority on 29.12.1995. At the meeting there was an informal suggestion for laying the pipeline through the side of the existing pipeline. Accordingly the Executive Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority, World Bank Project Division, Ernakulam, furnished the requisition seeking acquisition of the land along the eastern side of the existing pipeline in anticipation sanction from higher authorities and according to the suggestions made by the District Collector Originally an attempt was made to seek World Bank assistance for the implementation of these water supply schemes. However, these did not materialise since the World Bank backed out and no assistance was forth-coming. Water Authority considered various proposals from different private agencies including the one suggested by the petitioners in their Writ Petitions. 6. However, project report was finally prepared with the assistance of Tata Consulting Engineers with the loan assistance from HUDCO. After finalising the various aspects, Water Authority made a request to the District Collector on 15.11.1995. Request was sent to the Special Tahsildar (LA), General, Kakkanad on 17.11.1995. Since objections were raised from various quarters, Collector convened conferences. 6. However, project report was finally prepared with the assistance of Tata Consulting Engineers with the loan assistance from HUDCO. After finalising the various aspects, Water Authority made a request to the District Collector on 15.11.1995. Request was sent to the Special Tahsildar (LA), General, Kakkanad on 17.11.1995. Since objections were raised from various quarters, Collector convened conferences. Later the Special Tahsildar (LA), General, Ernakulam as per letter No.B1-3135/95 dated 31.1.1996 requested the production of certificate from the Administrative Department in the Government for invocation of the urgency clause in respect of land acquisition proposal. In the meanwhile, notifications under S.6 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act were published in the Mathrubhumi and Madhyam Dailies dated 1.2.1996 and 5.7.1996. The requisite Government certificate dated 4.5.1996 was produce by the Executive Engineer of the Water Authority on 23.6.1996. On 6.7.1996, the Special Tahsildar requested the District Collector to address the Board of Revenue for the purpose of invoking the urgency clause in the instant case. District Collector later addressed the Board of Revenue on 12.7.1996 seeking an order from the Board of Revenue for invocation of the urgency clause under the Land Acquisition Act. The Board of Revenue issued the order invoking the urgency clause on 22.7.1996. This order was received at the Collectorate on 25.7.1996. Meanwhile preliminary survey work had been completed and the notification was ready. On 25.7.1996 S.4(1) notification was sent for publication. On 1.8.1996 the notification was published in the Gazette and on 23.9.1996 the Special Tahsildar issued a public notice under S.4(1) regarding the acquisition. 7. It is after undergoing the above said procedural formalities that the respondents have invoke the urgency clause. Evidently the scheme is for the interests of the public. It is pertinent to note in the year 1991 the population of the city was 5.59 lakhs with water demand of 184 laid whereas the actual supply was only 100 mld with a satisfaction level of 54%. In the year 1991, the population in the entire Kochi Water Supply Project area is 15.07 lakhs with a water demand of 395 mld. The actual supply is only 170 mld with a satisfaction level of 43%. Due to the excessive demand, the Water Treatment Plant capacity was enhanced from its rated capacity of 120 to 170 mld by overloading. In the year 1991, the population in the entire Kochi Water Supply Project area is 15.07 lakhs with a water demand of 395 mld. The actual supply is only 170 mld with a satisfaction level of 43%. Due to the excessive demand, the Water Treatment Plant capacity was enhanced from its rated capacity of 120 to 170 mld by overloading. In the year 1993, a new Water Treatment Plant of capacity of 70 mld was built under the project water supply scheme to Greater Cochin Areas, with World Bank assistance to supply water to 12 panchayats. The treated water has been conveyed through the existing 1050 C.I. main. This 70 mld water Treatment Plant has provisions for enhancement to 105 mld provided a 35 mld water Treatment Plant is constructed along with raw water and clear water pumps of 35 mld. Over the years the combined carrying capacity of 900 mm and 1050 mm main has been reduced from 230 mld to 133 mld due to the reduction of 'C' valve. As a result the entire generation capacity of 240 could not be utilised and the City's water scarcity problem remained unresolved. 8. There has been hue and cry from the public for adequate water supply, which has always been a perennial problem in and around Cochin. Urgency was imminent. It is under the above mentioned circumstances that the Water Authority explored the possibility of increasing water supply and formulated the present scheme. Since the requirement was imminent, they addressed the authorities for invoking the emergency clause. 9. In any organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieved this object. As held by the Supreme Court in Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549 right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to nay civilised society. Therefore drinking water is basic essential requirement to right to live. It is under the above mentioned circumstances that the authorities have invoke the emergency clause. These are basic human rights known to nay civilised society. Therefore drinking water is basic essential requirement to right to live. It is under the above mentioned circumstances that the authorities have invoke the emergency clause. As held by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned decision, the opinion of urgency formed by the appropriate Government to take immediate possession is a subjective conclusion based on the material before it and it is entitled to great weight unless it is vitiated by mala fides or colourable exercise of power. Supreme Court further held that even if there is delay before and after issuance of S.17(4) notification, delay caused by the officer does not create a cause to indicate that there is no urgency. In Deepak Pahw v. Government of Delhi, (1984) 4 SCC 308 , a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the notification under S.17(4) eventhough lapse of time of 8 years had occurred due to interdepartmental discussions before receiving the notification. That itself was considered to be a ground to invoke urgency clause. It was held that delay on the part of the lethargic officials to take further action in the matter of acquisition was not sufficient to nullify the urgency which existed at the time of issuance of the notification and to hold that there was never any urgency. Lethargy on the part of the officers at an early stage was not relevant to decide whether on the day of the notification there was urgency or not. Conclusion of the Government that there was urgency, though not conclusive, is entitled to create weight. 10. In Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri. Kishan, (1993) 2 SCC 84 , 91, Supreme Court held that the satisfaction under S.17(4) is a subjective one and that so long as there is material upon which Government could have formed the said satisfaction fairly, the Court would not interfere nor would it examine the material as an appellate authority. In State of U.P. v. Keshav Prasad Singh, (1995) 5 SCC 587 , 590, the Supreme Court held that the Government was entitled to exercise the power under S.18(4) invoking urgency clause and to dispense with inquiry under S.5A when the urgency was noticed on the facts available on record. In State of U.P. v. Keshav Prasad Singh, (1995) 5 SCC 587 , 590, the Supreme Court held that the Government was entitled to exercise the power under S.18(4) invoking urgency clause and to dispense with inquiry under S.5A when the urgency was noticed on the facts available on record. Supreme Court re-emphasised the position again in Chameli Singh's case that when the Government on the basis of the material, constitutional and international obligation, formed its opinion on urgency, the Court, not being an appellate forum, would not disturb the finding unless the court conclusively finds the exercise of the power mala fide. 11. It is therefore well settled that once court comes to the conclusion that the authority concerned was acting within the scope of its powers, and had some materials, however meagre, on which it could reasonably base its conclusions, the court shall not and will not interfere. In view of the above mentioned settled principles, it can safely be concluded that the public interest looms large in this case. Water scarcity in and around Kochi City is always a perennial problem. People are holding dharna and staging demonstrations against the administrative lethargy. The requirement is imminent, So long as the problem of lack of drinking water remains unresolved, the urgency continues. As held by the Supreme Court in Jai Narayan vs. Union of India, (1996) 1 SCC 9 , the Court can also take judicial notice of the urgency to acquire the land. In may respects, peoples demands are genuine. Unless and until such schemes are implemented with utmost urgency, the same would adversely affect the constitutional rights of the citizens. Therefore I am not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioners that notification is bad in law. The acute scarcity of water itself is sufficient to invoke the urgency clause. 12. Reason for acquiring the land has been elaborately stated by the Water Authority in their counter affidavit. Sides of the existing pipeline road from Aluva to the sub-station are thickly inhabitated including schools and many other structures, demolition of which could invite unsurmountable difficulties. Suggestion of BODA was to have pipeline through the existing pipeline. Their report was not prepared by a Government agency. Even the report submitted by KITCO was prepared by a private consultant, so that report was not acceptable to the Water Authority. Suggestion of BODA was to have pipeline through the existing pipeline. Their report was not prepared by a Government agency. Even the report submitted by KITCO was prepared by a private consultant, so that report was not acceptable to the Water Authority. Water Authority relied upon the report of the Tata Consulting Engineers, which was found more technically feasible. Report was approved after thoroughly examining the technical aspects. 13. In an organised society especially when people are living in cities, towns, etc. the State is bound to look after their need. Large number of people, live in cities and around for avocation. Right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. Right to live guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution implies the right to food, water, shelter, good environment, education, medical care, etc. These are basic human rights known to any civilised society. 14. In every acquisition, the owner will be deprived of the land, in certain situations, even his means of livelihood, and perhaps his only abode. But State exercises its power of eminent domain for public purpose. Individuals' interest should give way for the larger public interest. The State can only compensate them in terms of money and at times, as situation warrants can rehabilitate the evictees. Whatever may be the heart-burning or even the plea of deprival of right to livelihood under Art.21, should give way to larger public interest, which in this case again a right guaranteed under Art.21. 15. This Court sitting under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is not justified in directing the Water Authority to adopt the schemes suggested by the petitioners as recommended by BODA or KITCO. There is no sufficient material to show that the scheme suggested by the Tata Consulting Engineers and approved by the Water Authority is not technically feasible. The best Judge are the persons who are to implement the scheme. Unless the petitioners establish that the Water Authority has adopted a scheme which is totally unworkable or adopted a scheme due to mala fide exercise of power or on perverse reasons, this Court will not substitute its judgment to that of the authorities. The best Judge are the persons who are to implement the scheme. Unless the petitioners establish that the Water Authority has adopted a scheme which is totally unworkable or adopted a scheme due to mala fide exercise of power or on perverse reasons, this Court will not substitute its judgment to that of the authorities. In view of the above said circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Water Authority, and which I have already found has to be implemented with utmost urgency so as to meet the demands of the public. Demand for water is itself a constitutional right. Accordingly Original Petitions are dismissed