Dismissed

Bhartiya Kisan Sangh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Oct 2010PIL/52/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL concerning a water supply project for PCMC via underground pipeline, the Court dismissed the petition. Relying on the Report of the Primary Dispute Resolution Officer under the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act, 2005, and noting net savings in electricity generation, the High Court held that no interference under Article 226 was called for.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the water supply project is dismissed. It is clarified that petitioners may approach the Primary Dispute Resolution Officer for any remedy against his order.

Bhartiya Kisan Sangh and Ors. Vs Union of India and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

pil52-09

upa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 52 OF 2009

¶7

Bhartiya Kisan Sangh and others ).. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Union of India and others ).. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioners. Mr. S.P. Dube for Respondent No.1. Mr.Vijay Patil, Government Pleader, with Mr. V.S. Gokhale, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent No.2 State. Mr. S.R. Ganbavale for Respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. TUESDAY , OCTOBER 19, 2010

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

The petitioners in this petition purporting to be a public interest litigation are agriculturists and the association of agriculturists who are carrying on agricultural activities near village Aatwan, Maval taluka of Pune district. The petitioners challenge the project of supply of water to the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation by use of closed underground pipe line. At present, Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation gets water supply from river Pavna from the point which is 34.84 kmgs from Pavna dam. As per the project in question, the PimpriChinchwad Municipal Corporation will get water supply through underground closed pipe line from the dam itself.

¶14

Under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act, 2005, the State Government has appointed

pil52-09

upa

Primary Dispute Resolution Officer to resolve the disputes with regard to issuance or delivery of water entitlement. The officer appointed as Primary Dispute Resolution Officer has already looked into the issues raised in the present petition and while submitting his report dated 27 January 2010, has dealt with all the issues. The report was submitted after giving hearing to all the stake holders including the petitioneragriculturists, Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and other affected parties. The report has considered all the relevant issues including generation of electricity, the units of electricity being generated at present and the units of electricity which will be generated after the project is implemented and the over-all savings in electricity consumption by the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation for the purpose of lifting the water from the Pavna river.

¶19

At the hearing today, the learned counsel for Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation has placed on record comparison statement indicating the overall savings in electricity consumption. The said statement reads as under :-

¶20

Sr. No	Stage	ELECTRICY GENERATION Per Year through Dam (As per Irrigation record)	ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION Per Year for Pumping (As per PCMC record)
1	As on Today	1,75,00,000 Units	4,94,19,117 Units
2	After functioning of Direct Pipeline Project	70,00,000 Units	3,30,66,679 Units
3	Difference (As savings)	-1,05,00,000 Units	+ 1,63,52,438 Units
4	Net Savings in Electricity Units	+58,52,43	8 Units
5	Net Savings in Amount@ Rs.5/- per Units	+2,92,62 (Say + Rs.2.	,190/- 92 Crores)

pil52-09

upa

It is pointed out on behalf of the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation that upon the project becoming operational, there will be net savings in electricity units to the tune of 58,52,438 units and there will be consequential savings to the extent of R.2.92 crores at the rate of Rs.5/- per unit.

¶25

As per the settled legal position, this Court is not to sit in appeal over the decision of the administrative authorities and that too in public project of such importance.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners would, however, submit that the agriculturists will loose their lands and the electricity generation will stop on account of the insufficient waterfall near the dam.

¶27

The learned counsel for the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation submits that only land of the width of 6 metres along with Express Highway is required and that the agriculturists will, therefore not be losing substantial portion of land but only a strip of land along the Expressway Highway will be required.

¶28

As regards the electricity generation also, learned counsel for the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation states that towards the expenses for installing a new electricity generating turbine, the Municipal Corporation will pay a sum of Rs.26 crores to the Irrigation Department before the Municipal Corporation will start lifting the water from the Pavna dam. It is further pointed out in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation that the water in Pavna dam is more than sufficient to cater to the needs of all the people including

pil52-09

upa

the petitioners. The said stand of the Municipal Corporation is also borne out by the report of the Primary Dispute Resolution Officer referred to hereinabove.

¶33

In view of the above, we are of the view that no interference of this Court is called for in exercise of extra ordinary prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶34

It is clarified that if the petitioners have any remedy against the order of the Primary Dispute Resolution Officer, this order shall not come in the way of the petitioners in approach the authority.

¶35

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶36

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Bhartiya Kisan Sangh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhartiya Kisan Sangh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Mohd. Khalid Mukhtar Ahamad Vs Municipal Corporation for the City of Bhiwandi Nizampur and

Brashtachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Ramboz Mitra Mandal Vs Mhada and 3 Ors.

Viniyog Parivar Trust and Anr. Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Prajasattak Samajik Seva Smastha Vs Superintendent of Police and Ors.

Prajasattak Samajik Seva Smastha Vs Superintendent of Police and Ors.

Chandu Piru Shekuwale Vs the Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, Dept. of Forest and 4 Ors.

Durgesh Warty and 1 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Appasaheb Ramchandra Jadhav and Ors. Vs State of Maharasthra and Ors.

Maruti Ambaji Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Eknath Rama Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tatyasaheb Kore Dental College and Research Centre Vs 1.UNION of India, and Ors.

M/S. R.J. Construction and Ors. Vs Premji Hirji Shah and Ors.

Aristo Realty Developers Ltd. Anr. Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 3 Ors.