Disposed

Paila Narasimhaiah v. The Government of A.P.

Telangana HC26 Nov 2012PIL/166/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a PIL alleging illegal water drawal from the Penna river. It found that a committee had assessed water availability and approved the drawal. Inspection confirmed drawal was within recommendations and for drinking water only. The court held no illegal drawal occurred.

What did the court decide?

Disposed the writ petition; directed the District Collector to keep a watch on the matter.

Paila Narasimhaiah Vs The Government… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶4

PRESENT: THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.166 of 2012

¶7

Between:

¶8

Paila Narasimhaiah

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

And

¶11

The Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretray, Irrigation Department, Hyderabad & others.

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

This Court made the following:

¶14

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶15

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶16

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.166 of 2012

¶17

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶18

This writ petition is filed under Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in not taking any action against the 6^th respondent by prohibiting illegal drawl of water from Penna river and the 3^rd respondent in not taking any action in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.4137 and 8004 of 2005, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶19

On 24.09.2012, this Court directed the District Collector, Anantapur, to file a report in this matter. In compliance with the said direction, the District Collector, Anantapur, has filed report, wherein it is stated that he constituted a three-member committee consisting of Superintending Engineer, RWS, Anantapur, Project Director, DWMA, Anantapur and Deputy Director, Ground Water, Anantapur, to assess the requirement of the water for the purpose of drinking water basing on the availability of ground water in the river bed. On receipt of the recommendations by the said Committee, the District Collector accorded permission to the 6^th respondent for drawl of 500 cusec meters of water per day from Penna river bed for drinking water needs vide his order, dated 29.03.2006. It appeared that the said Committee also inspected the pumping site in Penna river on 27.09.2012 along

¶20

with the representatives of both sides and the staff of Ultratech Cement Limited and found that the pumping water level is recorded as 4.18 meters below the ground level from pumping well and water level in the non-pumping well is 3.55 below the ground level. The rate of discharge measured through the flow meter is 41.8 cusec meters per one hour. It appears in an average, the pumping stands down from 500 cusec meters per day. The flow meter at the time of inspection also checked up. On the above observations, the Committee came to the conclusion that the average drawl of water from the Penna river bed by the Ultratech Cement Limited is within the recommendation of 500 cusec meters per day for the purpose of drinking water only.

¶21

In these circumstances, there is no question of illegal drawl of water from Penna river as pointed out in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, we find that since all steps have been taken in the matter, we dispose of the Writ Petition directing the District Collector to keep a watch in the matter in question.

¶22

______________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶23

Date: 26.11.2012 ES

Paila Narasimhaiah v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paila Narasimhaiah v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Human Rights Council, Vs The Government of India

Human Rights Council, Regd.No. 986/99, Vs The Government of India

The Visakha Zilla Sampradaya Matshyakarmika Union Vs Union of India Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Enviroment

Rama Melkote, W/o. Shankar Narayan Melkote Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. M.Gopal, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

All India Forward Block Pary Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Pragathi Welfare Association, Vs The Government of Ap., rep. by its

Dargah Hzt. Moula Taleem Mastan (Rh), Vs Chief Executive Officer

Saroja Jute Mills Private Limited Vs State Bank of India

Ellanki Engineering College, Chinnagundavelli Vs M/s. Private Polytechnics Managements Association

Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Vs M/s Private Polytechnics Managements

R. Vidyasagar Rao, Vs Govt. of a.P., rep. by its Principle Secretary, Irrigation and

Balala Hakkula Sangham (Regd.No. 470/2011) Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

In Re.. Vs Sri Seetharam Chaparla