Disposed¶23

Ashutosh Mohanta v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC27 Jan 2026WP(C)/33373/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL drinking water supply; village Raipur, Keonjhar district, Odisha; pipeline installed 2020 but no supply; Article 21 Constitution of India right to safe drinking water; constitutional obligation of Government; Mega Pipe Water Project connection; Udayapur and Khajirapat Gram Panchayat; tank construction stalled by pending litigation; nine Government tube wells; six months' timeline; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Grievance held redressed on the strength of the Government's alternative mechanism (connection of Raipur village to the Mega Pipe Water Project); Government expected to complete the work within the six-month timeline sought, with nine Government tube wells catering to the villagers in the meantime. ¶23

Ashutosh Mohanta Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Government is supplying drinking water through the pipeline installed in 2020 at the doorstep of houses in village Raipur, Keonjhar district, whose inhabitants reportedly have to fetch water from Government tube wells at a distant place. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Safe drinking water is a fundamental right enveloped within Article 21 of the Constitution of India; the right to life imbibes within itself the right to have safe drinking water for survival of the human race.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Supplying drinking water to the citizenry is not only an obligation imposed upon the Government but a constitutional obligation which cannot be undermined or whittled down by any means.

¶18

Key takeaways

Since the Government has taken a conscious decision and explored an alternative mechanism to provide drinking water through the pipeline under the Mega Pipe Water Project, the grievance raised in the writ petition is found redressed, subject to the Government showing alacrity in completing the project within a reasonable time.ratio¶22
Nine Government tube wells have been installed at Raipur village for the villagers' sustenance; six months' time has been sought to complete the alternative mechanism, and the Court expects the Government to complete the work within that timeline.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation (WP(C) No.33373 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 27.01.2026; Coram: The Chief Justice and Murahari Sri Raman, JJ.): Petitioner complained that although a drinking-water pipeline was installed by the Government in 2020 at the doorstep of houses in village Raipur, Keonjhar district, no drinking water had been supplied through it, forcing inhabitants to fetch water from Government tube wells at a distant place. The Court held that safe drinking water is a fundamental right engulfed within Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that providing drinking water is a constitutional obligation of the Government which cannot be undermined or whittled down. The Additional Government Advocate, on written instructions, submitted that pending litigations had stalled construction of a tank needed for uninterrupted supply to Udayapur and Khajirapat Gram Panchayat areas (Raipur falling under Udayapur Gram Panchayat), and that the Government had explored connecting Raipur village to the Mega Pipe Water Project. Finding the grievance thereby redressed, noting nine Government tube wells already installed at Raipur and six months' time sought for completion, the Court disposed of the writ petition expecting the Government to complete the work within that timeline.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.33373 of 2025

¶2

Ashutosh Mohanta

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Sidhartha Radhakrishnan, Advocate -Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others

¶6

… Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Additional Government Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

27.01.2026

03. 1 . The instant Public Interest Litigation raises a serious concern over the supply of drinking water through the supply pipeline already installed at the doorstep of houses in village Raipur in Keonjhar district. According to the petitioner, the water pipeline was installed by the Government to cater to the needs of the inhabitants of the said village way back in the year 2020 but till date no drinking water is supplied through such water pipeline which causes immense difficulty to the inhabitants of the said village as they have to fetch water from the Government tube wells installed at a distant place.

¶15

2. It admits no quarrel that the water is a source of life without which the sustenance of the human life cannot be ensured. It is an essential element of life and duty cast upon the Government to provide safe drinking water to the human race. There is no incongruity in perceiving the necessity of the water being a source of life and it is collective responsibility of the Government to provide drinking water. By the advent of the human civilization and to ensure the good governance, the drinking water supply is made at the door

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

steps and after the Urban Development having taken place rapidly each household is provided with the drinking water through a pipeline installed by the Government. It is engulfed into a fundamental right envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to life imbibe within itself right to have safe drinking water for survival of the human race.

¶18

3. The petition would reveal that the Government took the initiative in installing the drinking pipeline at the said village as far back as in the year 2020, yet the supply of drinking water through such pipeline appears to be a far cry. It is not only an obligation imposed upon the Government to supply drinking water to its citizenry but is also a constitutional obligation which cannot be undermined and not to be whittled down by any means.

¶19

4. It is arduously submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate on the basis of the written instructions received from the concerned officer that because of certain litigations pending before the Court, the construction of a tank could not be completed so as to ensure an uninterrupted supply of drinking water through such pipeline into Gram Panchayat area namely, Udayapur and Khajirapat. It is further submitted that since the Raipur village is coming under the Udayapur Gram Panchayat despite the installation of the pipeline in the year 2020, seamless supply of drinking water could not be made. However, alternative possibilities have been explored by the Government to connect the Mega Pipe Water to Raipur village but to put everything in place would consume sometime.

¶20

5. Since the Government has taken a conscious decision and explored an alternative mechanism to provide safe and drinking

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

water through such pipeline under the Mega Pipe Water Project, we, thus, find that the grievance raised in the instant writ petition is redressed subject to the Government must show alacrity in completing such project within a reasonable time. It further appears that nine numbers of Government tube wells have been installed at Raipur village to cater to the needs of the villagers for sustenance of their lives and six months’ time have been sought to complete such alternative mechanism having installed in the meantime. We, therefore, expect that the Government will complete the work within the aforementioned timeline.

¶23

6. On the basis of such observations, the writ petition is, thus, disposed of.

¶24

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶25

Aswini

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 28-Jan-2026 18:37:29

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Ashutosh Mohanta v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Mohanta v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Hawkeye, Dhenkanal Vs Commissionr Cgst Central Revenue Building, Bbsr

M/S Montecarlo Limited, Gujarat Vs the Addl Commissioner of State Tax, (Appeal) Central Zone Ii, Cuttack

Kundus Kitchen Equipment Private Limited, Khordha Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bhubaneswar IV Circle, Khordha

Arakhita Swain Vs State of Odisha

Satish Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Aratatrana Bhuyan Vs State of Odisha