Disposed

V.Periyasamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Sept 2021WP/18569/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition praying for a direction to public authorities to stop misusing lift irrigation wells on River Cauvery banks. The Court directed specific engineering officers to consider representations and pass orders after hearing within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The third and fourth respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders after hearing within eight weeks.

V.Periyasamy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.09.2021

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

¶4

W.P. No. 18569 of 2021 and W.M.P. No. 19814 of 2021

¶5

V. Periyasamy .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Tami Nadu

¶8

Rep. by its Secretary to Government Public Works Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009

¶9

The Chief Engineer Public Works Department Water Resources Organisation Thiruchirapalli Region Thiruchiralli

¶10

The Special Chief Engineer Melkaveri Basin Circle Salem

¶11

The Executive Engineer Public Works Department Water Resources Organisation Sarabanga Basin Division Salem

¶12

The District Collector Namakkal District, Namakkal

¶13

The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO)

¶14

Namakkal .. Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for seeking to direction to direct the respondents 3 to 6 to act on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 06.01.2021 and as directed by the Chief Engineer, Trichy the second respondent, in his letter dated 21.01.2021 and the Secretary, PWD, the first respondent in the letter dated 20.02.2021 to put an end to the pernicious practice of lift irrigation by digging huge wells on the banks of River Cauvery in Salem and Karur Districts

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. K. Rajasekaran For Respondents : Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu Government Counsel (R1 - R5)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 6 to act on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner in terms of the letter dated 21.01.2021 of the Chief Engineer, Trichy, the second respondent as well as the letter dated 20.02.2021 of the Secretary, PWD, the first respondent and to put an end to the pernicious practice of lift irrigation by digging huge wells on the banks of River Cauvery in Salem and Karur Districts

¶20

According to the petitioner, he is the Secretary of Raja Vaikkal Pasana Vivasaya Sangam, which aims at protecting the interest of farmers whose lands are irrigated by Raja Canal and for whose benefit water is being let into Cauvery River during the months of June to January every year. According to the petitioner, some of the people claiming themselves as agriculturists dugs huge wells near the banks of Cauvery, acquires the water under the guise of lift irrigation but misuses it by drawing water from big wells during the non-water flow period i.e., February to June resulting in depletion of the water to the traditional farmers. The petitioner further submits that in the name of lift irrigation, water is being utilised by these lift irrigation societies for commercial purpose by charging Rs. 15 lakhs per acre. It is further stated that such associations do not have any right to draw water during non-release period. The petitioner further submits that these lift irrigation associations are drawing water by installing 500 to 700 HP Motor Pumps, and irrigating 5000 acres of lands, for which they charge Rs. 12 to 15 lakhs. In this context, the petitioner submitted a representation on 06.01.2021 to the respondents. On the basis of the same, the first and second respondents have also sent letters directing the other respondents to take action in this regard. However, it is stated that no action has been taken and therefore, the present writ petition is filed.

¶21

Heard both sides and perused the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers.

¶22

Considering the limited relief sought in this writ petition, this court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the third and fourth respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.01.2021 in terms of the letter dated 21.01.2021 of the Chief Engineer, Trichy, the second respondent as well as the letter dated 20.02.2021 of the Secretary, PWD, the first respondent and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and others concerned, within a period of eight weeks from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

dhk/rsh To

¶29

The State of Tami Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Public Works Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009 2. The Chief Engineer Public Works Department Water Resources Organisation Thiruchirapalli Region Thiruchiralli 3. The Special Chief Engineer Melkaveri Basin Circle Salem 4. The Executive Engineer Public Works Department Water Resources Organisation Sarabanga Basin Division Salem 5. The District Collector Namakkal District Namakkal 6. The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO) Namakkal. +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.NO. 45221 WP No. 18569 of 2021 PCH(CO) A.SK(13.10.2021)

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.Periyasamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Periyasamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

M/s. Orion Ventures Vs Southern Railway

Tamilnadu Paralympic Sports Association Vs The Principal Secretary / Member Secretary to sports

A.Anandan Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Mumtaj Vs The Tahsildar

M.Thangarasu Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M/s.Best Timbers, Vs The Union of India