JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that Ext.P1 order issued by the 1st respondent dated 30.01.2017 to the extent it restrains the petitioner from drawing and pumping water for irrigation from Chittur river is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and seeking other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner had obtained a permission to pump water from the Chittur river at the Adukkatha Challa area for irrigation of land where coconut, arecanut etc. are planted, from the concerned authorities and a 25 HP motor was installed, duly sanctioned by the Kerala State Electricity Board. On 30.01.2017, 1st respondent has issued Ext.P1 order directing the KSEB to disconnect connections for Coconut Plantations, which are used for Toddy production. Accordingly, on the strength of the order passed by the 1st respondent, the Assistant Engineer, KSEB, viz., 3rd respondent issued a communication to the petitioner, directing him to produce permission from the concerned Department for pumping water from the river, which the petitioner did. However, without any notice to the petitioner, all on a sudden, on 09.02.2017, the connection was disconnected by the 3rd respondent and prepared a mahazar for the same. Since then the petitioner is denied right to use water for any agricultural operations, it has adversely affected the existing coconut, arecanut and other plantations. According to the petitioner, the action violates the rights of the petitioner to carry on the agricultural operations by using the natural resources and to eke out his livelihood. It is also stated that the persons who are dependent on the petitioner are also put to difficulties consequent to the present action of the 1st respondent, on the basis of Ext.P1. 3. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that, after a careful evaluation of the deficit in South West Monsoon season, the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority has recommended for the declaration of drought in all Districts in the State of Kerala. The Government of Kerala issued an order taking note of the aforesaid situation, declaring all the 14 Districts in the State of Kerala as meteorologically drought affected, evident from Ext.R1(a). The Government of Kerala issued an order taking note of the aforesaid situation, declaring all the 14 Districts in the State of Kerala as meteorologically drought affected, evident from Ext.R1(a). On the basis of the aforesaid order, the District Management Authority of each District is duty bound to take all necessary steps to mitigate the severity of the situation, and the District Disaster Management Authority, is the authority vested with the powers under the Disaster Management to do the needful to mitigate the disaster. 4. It is also stated that the State Disaster Management Authority in its meeting held on 28.10.2016 decided to fix priorities for use of water in Kerala until 31st May, 2017 and Ext.R1(b) Circular dated 31.10.2016 is issued for the purpose. The first priority is given for drinking water supply, second priority for household use, third priority for domestic animals, fourth priority is for agriculture and fifth priority for industrial/commercial uses. 5. It is also submitted that a meeting was held on 19.11.2016 to discuss the scarcity of water in the Palakkad District. It was presided over by the District Collector. The officials from various Departments and members of local bodies also participated in the meeting, evident from Ext.R1 (c). Accordingly, suitable steps are taken to restrict the digging of bore wells in Palakkad District till 31.05.2017, evident from Exts.R1(d) and R1(e). 6. It is further stated that, Palakkad District is the worst drought affected area particularly in 2016-17 year. The rainfall is short by 60% and almost all water bodies in the District are dried off by January, 2017. The weather condition is extremely stressful to human beings, animals and other living things. The people of this District are facing a disaster like acute drinking water scarcity. Supply of drinking water through tanker lorries was started from October, 2016 itself. While the people, animals and other living things are suffering due to acute shortage of drinking water, petitioner was pumping water for agricultural purposes without any restrictions. Therefore, it was on the basis of the evaluation done, the supply of water to the petitioner for agricultural operations was disconnected. 7. It is also contended that the entire proceedings are on the basis of a clear study made to this aspect and there is no manner of illegality, arbitrariness or malafides on the part of the respondents. Therefore, it was on the basis of the evaluation done, the supply of water to the petitioner for agricultural operations was disconnected. 7. It is also contended that the entire proceedings are on the basis of a clear study made to this aspect and there is no manner of illegality, arbitrariness or malafides on the part of the respondents. It is further stated that petitioner had obtained permission to pump water for irrigation purposes from the District Collector, Palakkad. However, the said permission expired on 22.03.2013, evident from Ext.R1(f). On verification of the records, it is also revealed that the aforesaid permission was not renewed after March, 2013. Therefore, petitioner was using the 20 HP Pump set for drawing water from Chittur river without any permission at all. Therefore, the petitioner has no manner of cause of action to approach this Court also. 8. Heard Sri. K. Ramakumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Ranjith Thampan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 9. The sole question to be considered is, whether the petitioner is entitled to get any reliefs as sought for in the writ petition. The discussion made above clearly reveals that petitioner did not have any permission to pump water from the Chittur river after its expiry on 22.03.2013, evident from Ext.R1(f). Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition that it is based on the permission granted by the District Collector, Palakkad, petitioner was siphoning out water from Chittur river, cannot be sustained under law. Moreover, from the counter affidavit, as well as the submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General, it is clear that the State is facing acute drinking water problem during 2016-17 and realizing the situation alone, Ext.P1 order is passed by the 1st respondent in her status as the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority, Palakkad. Petitioner has no case that petitioner alone is singled out from the said process. Ext.P1 order is binding on all the persons who are depending on the natural resources for taking water. Petitioner has no case that petitioner alone is singled out from the said process. Ext.P1 order is binding on all the persons who are depending on the natural resources for taking water. Therefore, I do not think that petitioner has made out a case warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there being no illegality, arbitrariness, unfairness or malafides on the part of the official respondents in disconnecting the water supply of the petitioner. 10. However, it is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that the application submitted by the petitioner is pending before the District Collector, Palakkad. The restriction created under Ext.P1 is up to 31.05.2017, hopefully intending that the monsoon will start on and with effect from 01.06.2017 onwards. It is also submitted by learned Addl. Advocate General that the order can be modified, if situation changes consequent to sufficient replenishment of water through summer rains. 11. Even though I do not find any reason to interfere with the action of the respondents, I am hopeful that if the situation changes, by the grace of nature, 1st respondent may look into the matter and do the needful. I also take notice of the submission made by learned Additional Advocate General that Chittur river has almost dried up and nobody can be permitted to siphon out water from the said river. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.