Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramesh L vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41416-DB
WP No. 7483 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 7483 OF 2024 (GM-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAMESH L.,
S/O. LAKSHMI NARASIMAHIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THIMMANAHALLI AT POST,
KANDIKERE HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 228.
2. SRI GURUMUTHY
S/O. GUDDA THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
Digitally signed RESIDING AT THIMMANAHALLI AT POST,
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU KANDIKERE HOBLI,
Location: High CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
Court of
Karnataka TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 228.
3. SRI SHASHIKUMAR D.C.,
S/O. CHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THIMMANAHALLI AT POST,
KANDIKERE HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 228.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41416-DB
WP No. 7483 of 2024
4. SRI DEVARAJAIAH D.G.
S/O. GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
THIMMANAHALLI AT POST,
KANDIKERE HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 228.
5. SRI NAGESH E.,
C/O. ESHWARAPPA B.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDENT AT THIMMANAHALLI AT POST,
KANDIKERE HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 228.
6. SRI NARENDRA BABU P.,
S/O. PANDURANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BELAVADI
HULIYAR HOBLI,
THIMMANAHALLI POST - 572 228
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
7. SRI CHANDRAIAH
S/O. SANNA VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF KUREHALLI KAVAL
THIMMANAHALLI POST - 572 228
HULIYAR HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:41416-DB
WP No. 7483 of 2024
8. SRI HUSSEN SAB
S/O. GOUSE SAB,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BADAKEGUDLU
BELLARA POST,
KANDIKERE HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TLAUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 228.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI THYAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPLE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND
GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
TUMKUR - 572 201.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TIPTUR SUB-DIVISION, TIPTUR
TUMKUR - 572 201.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:41416-DB
WP No. 7483 of 2024
5. THE TAHASILDAR
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND
UNDERGROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT
SIRA SUB-DIVISION,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES IMMEDIATELY
STOP THE WATER OUTFLOW / RELEASE FROM THE
BORANAKANIVE RESERVOIR, SITUATED AT
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT AS THE
SAME IS REQUIRED FOR DRINKING PURPOSE TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC AND CATTLE OF THE LOCALITY & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:41416-DB
WP No. 7483 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. S. Thyagaraja for the petitioners
and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for
the respondents. .
2. The present petition is filed styling it as public interest petition.
The petitioners are the villagers. What they have prayed for issuance
of writ of mandamus requiring the respondent-authorities to
immediately stop the water release/water outflow from the
Boranakanive Reservoir at Chikkanayakanahalli Taluka, Tumakuru
District. It was next prayed to require the respondent-authorities to
consider and dispose of the representation dated 25.01.2024 as well
as the subsequent representation dated 01.02.2024 made by the
petitioners.
2.1 The grievance, as essentially raised is about release of water
from the said reservoir. It was stated that on 18.11.2023, respondent
No.4-the Assistant Commissioner, Tiptur Sub-Division, Tiptur, decided
to resolve to release water from Boranakanive Reservoir for 45 days.
NC: 2024:KHC:41416-DB
3. It was the case that the decision to release water was not
justified inasmuch as water is not available in sufficient quantity for
agricultural activities and that, water stored in the reservoir is in less
quantity. It was stated that water is necessary to be reserved for
drinking purpose and that, due to absence of regular monsoon and
rainfall, the reservoir had no inflow of water. It was then stated that
50 surrounding villages have been dependent upon the reservoir
water for drinking purpose.
3.1 It was the case that respondent No.4, by allowing the outflow of
water from the reservoir by opening the gate of the reservoir, has
acted against the interest of agriculture and has disregarded the need
to preserve water for drinking purpose. It was also stated that
cleaning of water canal was not undertaken before release of water.
3.2 It is to be noted that the decision by respondent No.4 which
was of releasing of water from the reservoir for 45 days was dated
18.11.2023. This petition was filed on 27.02.2024. On the date of
filing itself, the period of 45 days had passed by.
4. In addition to the above aspect, the petitioners have already
made representations mentioned above, the copies of which are
produced along with the memorandum of petition. They are pending
and yet to be considered.
NC: 2024:KHC:41416-DB
4.1 The decision which may be arrived at by the competent
authority on the representations of the petitioners may guide the
future exigencies.
5. The weighty reason for not entertaining the present public
interest petition, apart the aforesaid considerations, is that release of
water from dam/reservoir, quantity of such release, whether water is
to be released or not and for what period, are all decisions in the
technical realm. They are also the policy decisions based on
technical considerations and the factual needs to be assessed by the
authorities in that regard. The Court does not enter this sphere. The
Court cannot monitor, oversee or guide the aspect of release of water
from dam or reservoir.
6. The public interest petition on this score could not be
entertained.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
