Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 538 (MAD)

B. Ammapatti Panchayat v. Collector

2012-02-02

R.SUDHAKAR

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the second respondent from in any way diverting the water supply in accordance with the scheme formulated by TWAD Board to the villages under the control of the petitioner panchayat. 2. According to the petitioner, the water facility is provided by the TWAD Board drawn from Periyar River and taken to the wells of the Uppukottai village. Thereafter, the waters are pumped to storage tanks and one such tanks is fixed at B.Ammapattai village, the petitioner's village. From the storage tank, water supply is made to the second respondent village as well. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that water supply is being diverted to the second respondent village arbitrarily and contrary to the scheme. On this premise, the writ petition has been filed. 4. The fourth respondent Executive Engineer of Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board filed a detailed counter-affidavit disputing the claim of the writ petitioner and has stated in para 4 of the counter-affidavit that based on the District Collector's Inspection on 21.11.2001, the Public Works Department was asked to improve the drinking water level to the second respondent village and since several attempts to provide water through bore wells failed, the department decided to draw a revised scheme and the present water supply is as follows:- “6.) Hence this new water supply improvement proposal is formulated and sanctioned for an amount of Rs.9.64 lakhs to improve the water supply to all the 15 habitations including B.Ammapatty and Sillamarathupatty. The work had been taken up for execution during 8/2002 and laying of Branch pumping main to a length of 1.65 KM had been completed out of 3 Km. 7.) On completion of the above proposal all the 15 habitations in this Sillamarathupatty CWSS will get more quantum of water than the present supply. Required quantity of water supply of Ammapatti habitation will not be affected in anyway due to implementation of the new proposal. Instead of the people of Ammapatti will be supplied more water than present supply.” 5. The allegation of diversion of water is denied in para 10 of the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent and it reads as follows:- “10.) The allegation in para 5 & 6 are denied. The 4th respondent states that the scheme is maintained by TWAD Board. The allegation of diversion of water is denied in para 10 of the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent and it reads as follows:- “10.) The allegation in para 5 & 6 are denied. The 4th respondent states that the scheme is maintained by TWAD Board. The entire cost of the scheme as already stated was borne by the State Government. The averment that in Aug.2002 the President of the 2nd respondent and a village leader Surendran and others made an attempt to divert water line is totally false. As already stated that a new water supply improvement proposal is implemented.” 6. In view of the clear and categorical statement of the second respondent Executive Engineer, the allegation of the petitioner appears not based on records. In view of the specific statement made in the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent supported by a detailed plan, there is no basis for filing the writ petition. 7. In view of the above, finding no merits, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.