Kerala High Court
Palakkadan Karshaka Munnettam vs State Of Kerala on 26 June, 2025
WA NO.1921/2018 1
2025:KER:46081
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2025/5TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO.1921 OF 2018
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2018 IN
WP(C) NO.15887/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 PALAKKADAN KARSHAKA MUNNETTAM
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REGISTRATION NUMBER
PKD/CA/33/2018, SUDEVAN RICE MILL ROAD,
KUTHANUR, PALAKKAD-678573.
2 C.VELAYUDHAN,
AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.CHAMUNNI(LATE), MANGOTTUPURA,
KOTTEKAD P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 732.
3 DESEEYA KARSHAKA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
REG.NO.CA/282/2001, A.R.NAIR COLONY, 1/27,
KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD-678 013.
BY ADV SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SCRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
WA NO.1921/2018 2
2025:KER:46081
3 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
4 KINFRA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KINFRA HOUSE, TC 31/2312, SASTHAMANGALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.
5 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD, KERALA-678 013.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
SRI.P.M.JOHNY, SC, R3
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN, R4
SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER,R1, R2 & R5
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.06.2025, THE COURT ON 26.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.1921/2018 3
2025:KER:46081
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
26.07.2018 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.15887 of
2018. Appellants were the petitioners in the WP (C).
2. Appellants, who include registered societies of farmers of
Palakkad District, had moved this Court alleging non-supply of
requisite water from the Malampuzha dam for irrigation purposes
and challenging a sanction (Ext.P3) issued for the supply of 10 MLD
of water to Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation
(KINFRA). The Writ Petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(i). To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P3 as unjust, illegal
and arbitrary ;
(ii) To declare that the 2nd respondent is liable to release water for
minimum 90 days for agricultural/irrigational purposes in the
two canals of Malampuzha Dam during the period September
to January of every year ;
2025:KER:46081
(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2
to release water for minimum 90 days for
agricultural/irrigational purposes in the two canals of
Malampuzha Dam during the period September to January of
every year ;
(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1, 2 and
3 to constitute and appoint an independent committee to
inquire into the aspect and to prepare a fact finding report and
to frame policy with respect to the distribution of water from
Malampuzha dam for different purposes after hearing all the
stakeholders including the petitioners ;
(v) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1, 2 and
3 to appoint the 1st petitioner association under Section 13 of
Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 in order to
manage and regulate the water distribution of Malampuzha
dam ;
(vi) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned
authorities to take up clearing and cleaning operations of the
canals and other enhancements so as to ensure responsible
water usage of water of Malampuzha dam ;
(vii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1
2025:KER:46081
and 2 to disburse a reasonable compensation fixed by this
Hon'ble Court for the losses occurred to the petitioners due to
non-supplying of minimum required water for paddy cultivation
within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court ;
(viii) To issue such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court would
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
3. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment
disposed of the Writ Petition vide a common judgment directing the
respondents not to divert water from the Malampuzha Dam Project
without meeting the requirements of the agriculturalists/farmers in
accordance with the Scheme, namely, Ext.P1. It was also directed
that all the appellants shall be at liberty to point out any deficiency in
supply of water to the agriculturalists/farmers before the appropriate
authorities.
4. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants
aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge to the
extent that the other reliefs sought by them in the Writ Petition,
especially the prayer to quash Ext.P3 had not been allowed.
5. Heard Smt. Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, Advocate
2025:KER:46081
for the appellants, Sri.P.M.Johny, Advocate for R3,
Sri.P.U.Shailajan, Advocate for R4 and Sri.K.P.Harish, learned
Senior Government Pleader for R1, R2 and R5.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that
the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the Writ Petition as
prayed for and erred in not addressing the contentions put forth by
the appellants, regarding the statutory violations in the management
of the dam. It is further contended by the learned counsel that
Ext.P1 referred to by the learned Single Judge and termed as a
'Scheme', in the judgment is only a project information available on
the website. The same is not a Scheme and does not have any
authority in distributing water either to farmers or to KINFRA. The
learned counsel also placed reliance on the Kerala Irrigation and
Water Conservation Act, 2003, and invited our attention to Chapter
VII thereof regarding Regulation of Water Supply for Irrigation as
stipulated in Section 29. It is submitted that the norms thus laid
down regarding distribution of water are to be mandatorily complied
with and violation in the said respect was overlooked by the learned
Single Judge. Reference is also made by the learned counsel to the
2025:KER:46081
Kerala State Water Policy, 2008 and submissions are made based
on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State
(NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay [(2014) 9 SCC 772]. It is contended that
the respondents, being trustees of water in the dam, are liable to
make sure that the same is enjoyed by all the stakeholders equally
and justifiably. According to the learned counsel, the judgment of
the learned Single Judge to the extent it overlooked the above-
mentioned aspects, is fit to be interfered with.
7. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader as
well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd and 4th respondents
submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not
call for any interference insofar as the learned Single Judge had
allowed the principal prayer of the appellants and had directed the
respondents not to divert water from the Malampuzha Dam Project
without meeting the requirements of the agriculturalists/farmers. The
said direction in the judgment takes care of the concerns of the
appellants, and they are not entitled to any further reliefs.
Maintainability of the appeal is also challenged insofar as the
learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petitions vide a common
2025:KER:46081
judgment, though not to the fullest extent as sought by the
appellants.
8. We have heard both sides in detail and have
considered the respective contentions put forth.
9. It is noted that the learned Single Judge had disposed
of the above Writ Petition along with connected Writ Petitions,
directing the respondents not to divert water from the Malampuzha
Dam Project without meeting the due requirements of the
agriculturalists/farmers. We note that though specific contentions
have been raised in the Writ Petition referring to Section 29 of the
Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, the same have not
been discussed or considered by the learned Single Judge. We find
merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that
Ext.P1 is not a Scheme and that it is rather a project information and
does not concern the distribution of water to the farmers or to
KINFRA. Be that as it may, we note that substantial time has
elapsed since the rendering of the judgment. A perusal of the reliefs
sought in the Writ Petition reveals that most of the same verge on
policy decisions to be taken by the appropriate authorities after
2025:KER:46081
taking note of the relevant factual inputs. Since by the passage of
time, there could have been subsequent developments in the matter
regarding allocation of water from the concerned dam, we deem it
fit and proper to close this Writ Appeal, reserving all the rights of the
appellants to agitate their pending grievances, if any, by initiating
appropriate legal action. All rights of the parties are left open.
Writ Appeal is closed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
