Allowed

Thambidurai, v. the Chief Engineer

Madras HC8 Sept 2023WP(MD)/10945/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition. The court set aside the first respondent's vague rejection of the No Objection Certificate application for commercial groundwater tapping. It directed the respondent to consider a fresh application under specific Government Orders within ten weeks, ensuring a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned communication set aside; petitioner directed to submit fresh application under G.O(Ms) 142 of 2014 and 15 of 2023; respondent directed to decide within ten weeks with p

Thambidurai, Vs the Chief Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10945 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 08.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.10945 of 2015 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2015

Thambidurai

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Center, Tharamani, Chennai - 113.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶13

3.The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Management, Tirunelveli.

¶14

4.The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Center, Tharamani, Chennai 113.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/5

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.10945 of 2015

¶19

Prayer:

¶20

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining the Impugned Order passed by the first respondent in Lr.No. OT9/DD/(G)/NOC/2014 dated 26.11.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent grant permission to petitioner for taking water and supply to the institutions from the bore well situated land in SF.No.84B/2 situated at Keelavalanadu Village, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gokul Raj

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel, Additional Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner applied to the first respondent seeking permission to

¶25

commercially tap the ground water resources. By the communication dated 26.11.2014, the petitioner's request was rejected. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶26

The impugned communication reads as follows :

¶27

“Your application for grant of NOC cannot be considered since the request is for sale of groundwater which in unauthorized and without

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

2/5

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.10945 of 2015

¶31

infrastructure. Hence your application is rejected and recorded in this office.”

¶32

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the first respondent has not specified what is the required infrastructure. The petitioner has only moved the first respondent seeking permission. So therefore, his request cannot be negatived on the ground that sale of ground water is unauthorized. While one reason is vague, the other reason is patently unjustified. The impugned communication is set aside.

¶33

It is seen that the Government had issued new Government Orders regulating the sale of ground water. The petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh application to the first respondent in terms of G.O(Ms)No. 142 Public Works Department dated 23.07.2014 and G.O(Ms)No.15 Water Resources Department dated 28.03.2023. On receipt of such application, the first respondent shall conduct enquiry and pass order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of ten weeks thereafter. Considering the special facts and circumstances of this case, the first respondent shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

3/5

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.10945 of 2015

¶37

This writ petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no

¶38

order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

¶39

closed.

¶40

08.09.2023

¶41

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA

¶42

¶43

1.The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Center, Tharamani, Chennai 113.

¶44

2.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶45

3.The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Management, Tirunelveli.

¶46

4.The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Center, Tharamani, Chennai 113.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

4/5

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.10945 of 2015

¶50

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶51

MGA

¶52

W.P.(MD)No.10945 of 2015 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.1,2 & 3 of 2015

¶53

08.09.2023

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

5/5

Thambidurai, v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thambidurai, v. the Chief Engineer

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

G. Rajagopal Vs the District Collector

Manikavasagam Vs Mr.Dr.R.Vaithinathan

N. Thaha Khan Vs the District Collector

Dalavoy T. Ramasamy Vs the Assistant Commissioner

S.Gnanamuthu Vs Office of the Accountant General

M/s. Vvv and Sons Edible Oils Ltd. Vs The State of Tamil Nadu