Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 707 (UTT)

Devi Dutt Bhatt v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-10-05

ALOK SINGH, K.M.JOSEPH

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs: "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 27.08.2016 passed by In-charge District Magistrate, Pithoragarh (filed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to start the new Pey Jal Scheme from Anerigarh to Village Futshil in view of the inquiry report submitted by the SDM Gangolihat on 04.07.2016." 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: There are four drinking Pey Jal schemes already completed by the Government for the residents of village Futshil and one irrigation canal is also constructed by the Government from Anerigarh to village Futshil. 3. The complaint of the petitioner is against the starting of new water supply scheme, which according to the petitioner, is sought to be executed at the cost of Rs. 52.54 lakh under the said land. On the basis of complaint, District Magistrate asked the Sub Division Magistrate to submit a report. Report was submitted by the SDM to the effect that there is no need for the new scheme but later on, the In-charge District Magistrate had passed the impugned order directed that the scheme be implemented. 4. Relevant extract of the impugned order passed by the In-charge District Magistrate reads as under: “With reference to the above mention subject kindly take the note of the office letters number 1081/miscellaneous (lt) 2016 dated 24.05.2016 & number - 7122(02)/xxxi miscellaneous/2015-16 dated 22 July, 2016 by which the inquiry report of S.D.M. Gangolihat pertaining to the drinking water supply project sanctioned under the district Project is forwarded. In this context an application to start the work had been submitted by the Pradhan Gram Panchayat Footsil Village Panchayat Kshektra Pramukh Vikas Khand Block Development Gangolihat. In context District Magistrate has passed the following order-“Hon’ble MLA is accepting the work project must be started as soon as possible in the public interest. Therefore, assure to comply the order passed by the District Magistrate.” 5. Respondents no. 3 and 4, who are Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer of the Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam, have filed counter affidavit. Paragraph nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit read as under: “5. Therefore, assure to comply the order passed by the District Magistrate.” 5. Respondents no. 3 and 4, who are Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer of the Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam, have filed counter affidavit. Paragraph nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit read as under: “5. That there is the Anariyagad-Footsil Water Supply Scheme in Block Gangolihat, Tehsil Gangolihat, District Pithoragarh wherein the total estimated costs of work is 52.24 lacs out of which 7 Lacs has already been released in favour the Gram Panchayat Footsil, which in turn has been transferred by the prescribed agency namely ‘User Water Sanitation Committee’ and the said agency has already procured material of Rs. 6,30,000/- for construction and establishment of the Anariyagad-Footsil Water Supply Scheme. In the said committee, work is done by the villagers on a Muster Roll basis. 6. That in the Writ petition the gravamen of the contention of petitioner in sum and substance is that there are other Drinking Water Schemes running at Footsil and there is sufficient water for use of villagers of Footsil and petitioner alleges that by the current scheme, there will be misuse of Public Money and also alleges that the scheme under challenge would affect other Water Schemes. In this regard, the deponent submits that the aforesaid 7 Water Schemes are in different habitations and would not get affected by the Drinking Water Scheme under challenge in view of the fact that other Drinking Water Schemes are based on tapping the Ground Water (which flows by the force of gravity) while the scheme under challenge is on Spring Water Scheme (which does not flow and springs out towards ground surface from underground against the gravity force). Thus, the water of earlier schemes would not be affected in any manner whatsoever. In as much the discharge of water from earlier Scheme will not be reduced. 7. That the petitioner has also annexed the report of Sub District Magistrate Gangolihat, wherein he has opined that there may be misuse of public money and there is sufficient water supply to the Village in question, therefore, there is no need of new water supply scheme. The deponent categorically states there that the report of the Sub District Magistrate is not based on the report of Technical person such as officials of Jal Sansathan or Jal Nigam. The deponent categorically states there that the report of the Sub District Magistrate is not based on the report of Technical person such as officials of Jal Sansathan or Jal Nigam. The discharge of water tapped for different of habitation has not been measured therefore in this view of the matter the report are not be said to be an authentic report and is liable to be ignored. That there is another aspect of the matter that the work is being executed by villagers themselves without any complaint except the few, who appear to have personal grudge against the Gram Pradhan. Several villagers have represented for new water supply scheme. That the present scheme will benefit 5 habitations in village footsil namely:- (a) Chela (b) Footsil (c) Kakri (d) Talla Gaon (e) Part of Takoli Design population of above mentioned habitation is 555, water required will be: 555 (Population) X 55 (liters per capita per day) = 30525 liter per day. 30525 liters which means, 30625 21.19 liters per minute 60 X 24 At the time of preparing estimate of footsil water scheme, the water discharge in the said 5 habitation was 12 liters per minute, as such demand is less than requirement.” 6. We heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The contention of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondents no. 3 and 4 is that scheme which is under attack by the petitioner is a spring water scheme, which works on the principle of anti gravity whereas other water supply schemes work on different principles. This new scheme is intended for the benefit of 550 inhabitants, as stated in the counter affidavit. It is further submitted that report of the SDM is made by a person, who does not have a technical expertise to go into the question of the exact quantity of water, which is being generated under the existing scheme. He would further submit that new scheme will be executed without adversely affecting the existing scheme. 8. We should always constantly remind ourselves the limitation on the Court’s jurisdiction, even if it is under public interest litigation. It is for the competent authorities to take policy decision. And unless there is a palpable illegality or arbitrariness or mala-fide, Court should be slow to interfere in such matters. The Courts are not expert nor are elected or accountable. We should always constantly remind ourselves the limitation on the Court’s jurisdiction, even if it is under public interest litigation. It is for the competent authorities to take policy decision. And unless there is a palpable illegality or arbitrariness or mala-fide, Court should be slow to interfere in such matters. The Courts are not expert nor are elected or accountable. Therefore, when the authorities, competent to take such decision, having technical expertise, look into the matter, we cannot proceed to consider this matter in the light of report of SDM, who cannot be treated as an expert in the matter. Therefore, we should restrain ourselves from interfering in the matter. 9. Subject to recording the submissions made by Mr. D.S. Patni, which we have already referred, petition is dismissed.