Madras High Court
K.K. Sreerangan vs S.Deivasigamani on 16 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
W.A.No.1791 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 30.07.2025
Pronounced on 16.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.No.1791 of 2024 and
C.M.P.No.12883 of 2024
1. K.K. Sreerangan
2. Shree Mahasakthi Neeryettra Paasana
Vivasayeegal Sangam,
Rep. by its Member N.Subramani, S/o.Nallasamy,
Puliyamara Thottam, Anthiyur Colony,
Michaelpalyam Post, Anthiyur,
Erode-638 501. .. Appellants/R20 & R21
-vs-
1. S.Deivasigamani
2. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department, Secretariat,
St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009.
3. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
TANGEDCO, 6th Floor, TANTRANSCO Building,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
4. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Chennai -600 034.
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
W.A.No.1791 of 2024
5. The Engineer-in-Chief,
(Water Resources and Organization) &
Chief Engineer (General),
Public Works Department, Chepauk-600 005.
6. The District Collector,
District Collectorate, Erode District.
7. The Chief Engineer,
Water Resources and Organization &
Public Works Department, Town Hall, Coimbatore.
8. The District Revenue Officer,
Office of the District Revenue Office,
Erode District.
9. The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO, EDC/Gobi, Tiruppur Road,
Vettaikarankovil, Nagadevanpalayam Post,
Gobichettipalayam, Erode District-638 476.
10. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.
11. The Divisional Engineer,
Department of Highways,
Office of the Divisional Engineer,
Moolapalayam, Erode District-638 002.
12. The Assistant Commissioner,
HR & CE Department, Erode Zone, Erode.
13. The Executive Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Gobichettipalayam,
EDC/Gobi, Erode District.
2/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
W.A.No.1791 of 2024
14. The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offences Wing,
State Bank Road, Erode,
Erode District.
15. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department, (Construction and Maintenance),
Bhavani, Erode District.
16. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Anthiyur, Erode District.
17. The Tahsildhar,
Anthiyur Taluk,
Erode District.
18. The Block Development Officer,
Block Development Office,
Anthiyur Taluk, Thavuttupalayam,
Anthiyur, Erode District.
19. Kaalingaraayan Paasana Madhagu
Vivasaya Sangam,
Rep. by its Member Palanikumar,
Kuttampalayam, Naduppaalayam,
Kodumudi, Erode District-638 151.
20. Bhavani Nathi Pasana Vivasayeegal Sangam,
Rep. by its President, Mr. Subi Thalapathi,
No.232, Kacheri Street, Thadapalli,
Arakan Kottai, Gobichettipalayam,
Erode-638 452.
21. The Executive Engineer,
Bhavanisagar Dam Division,
Bhavani, Erode District-638 451.
3/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
W.A.No.1791 of 2024
22. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Water Resources and Organization and
Public Works Department, Bhavani Division,
Bhavani-638 301, Erode District. ... R2 to R22/R1 to R19, 22 & 23
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, seeking
to set aside the order dated 26.04.2024 made in W.P.No.24432 of 2023
passed by this Court by allowing this Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Manokaran
For R1 : Mr.Rajarajan
For Mr.D.Nandhagopal
Mr.M.Venkateswaran,
Spl. Govt. Pleader
(For R2, R5, R6, R7, R8, R10, R11,
R14, R15 to 18, R21 & R22)
Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Govt. Advocate (HR&CE)
(For R4 & R12)
For R19 & R20 : Mr.C.Pushparaj
For R3, R9 & R13 : No Appearance
*****
JUDGMENT
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.)
A challenge in the Writ Appeal is to the order dated
26.04.2024 made in W.P.No.24432 of 2023, by which, the Writ Petition
was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities in respect of
illegal water extraction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
2. The Writ Petition was filed for a mandamus to direct the
Respondent Nos.1 to 17 therein to take necessary legal actions in the light
of the petitioner's representation dated 04.08.2022. According to the Writ
Petitioner, the most of the people in the village and the Writ Petitioner are
solely dependent on the income of agricultural produce. On account of
shortage of water, he stopped agriculture business. While so, the
Respondent Nos.20 & 21, who are appellants herein approached the
petitioner and demanded Rs.8,00,000/- for providing water through
pipelines from their respective wells to his land. The Writ Petitioner also
paid the said amount with a condition to furnish the approvals obtained by
them for laying pipelines, which have not been given till now.
3. It was stated in the Writ Petition that even after receipt of
money, there was no supply of water and the Writ Petitioner came to know
that the appellants herein have been illegally extracting water from
Bhavanisagar River. When the Writ Petitioner sought information under
RTI, it was replied by the Respondent Nos.3 and 11 that no permission was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
given to the appellants herein for laying pipelines in the Temple Land, but,
however they laid pipelines through Government lands and have been
illegally extracting water from Bhavani River. It was alleged that even State
machineries have been aiding the appellants herein for their illegal
activities. Even the 23rd respondent therein stated that no permission or No
Objection Certificate to take water from the well was granted to the
appellants herein.
4. It was further stated in the Writ Petition that the appellants
herein, having received huge money from the petitioner as well as other
Villagers, miserably failed to provide water from their wells. That apart, the
appellants have been illegally extracting water from Bhavanisagar River by
using monies collected from the Village. The illegal drawing of water from
the River led to severe scarcity of water, affecting the agriculture
cultivation. Therefore, he prayed for appointment of an Independent
Committee to look into the matter and to take legal actions against the
appellants herein on the basis of his representation dated 04.08.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
5. Upon considering the submissions on either side, learned
Single Judge passed the following order:
“7. In the present case, the petitioner states that several
such illegalities, brought to the notice of the competent
authorities, are not looked into properly. Thus, the petitioner is
constrained to move the present writ petition. The Government
implemented the order and issued various circulars regulating
the water distribution for irrigation purposes.
8. With reference to the complaint, Mr.N.Manokaran,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents
would submit that the respondents are not extracting water
illegally and they have been granted permission by the
competent authorities.
9. In this regard, the official respondents are bound to
verify the correctness of the permission and extraction of water
and regulate the same in consonance with the rules and
regulations. If any permission has been granted illegally, such
permissions are to be cancelled. If the permission are granted
in accordance with the regulation, that alone is to be permitted.
Any such permission should not cause infringement of the
right of other Ayacutdars /Agriculturists for equal distribution
of water for irrigation purposes. Grant of permission for
extraction of water should not affect the rights of other
agriculturists in that locality. Therefore, equal distribution of
water must be ensured by the competent authorities and all the
illegalities, irregularities regarding usage of water for irrigation
and other purposes are to be regulated in the manner known to
law by the authorities. In the event of any collusion on the part
of the authorities of the Government Department, they are
liable to be prosecuted under criminal laws as abettors, apart
from initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings under the
service rules. The respective District Collectors are bound to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
monitor the activities of utilization of water for irrigation and
other purposes and illegalities are to be immediately addressed
and the offenders are to be prosecuted in the manner known to
law.”
Aggrieved by the aforesaid directions of the learned Single Judge, the
Appellants, who are Respondent Nos.20 & 21 in the Writ Petition are
before this Court by filing the instant Writ Appeal.
6. It is the case of the appellants that the Writ Petitioner is not
an aggrieved person and therefore, he could have filed a Public Interest
Litigation, not a Writ Petition, ventilating his personal grievances. The
conversion of the lis into the one of PIL caused great prejudice to the
appellants as well as other farmers of the area. Learned Single Judge has, in
effect travelled beyond the pleadings and in fact, completely ignored the
Track Rent Permit granted by the Tahsildar, Anthiyur Taluk and thereby,
the settled issue was unsettled by the Writ Court in Paragraph No.9 of the
order. It is further case of the appellants that the order has been passed in
respect of drastic civil consequences without affording an opportunity of
hearing to affected parties. The Writ Petitioner does not come under the
purview of 'person aggrieved', as a person, who suffers from a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
psychological or an imaginary injury, cannot be termed so in the light of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhkan
Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2013 (4) SCC 465.
According to the appellants, there is a collusion between the petitioner and
one Arulmurugan, who had earlier filed the similar case of Writ Petition in
W.P.Nos.1665 of 2021 and 12351 of 2021 and invited adverse order. The
indiscriminate actions taken by the authorities causes inequitable hardship
to farmers under the term Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.
7. It is also the case of the appellants that the 2nd appellant is a
registered Sangam and no Writ will lie against Sangam. The impugned
order, resting on shaky foundations, violates the principles of natural
justice, unsettles vested rights and has opened floodgates of prejudice
against innocent agriculturists. The right to carry on agriculture is the
lifeblood of every farmer and it is not merely an occupation, but their very
right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is prayed that
the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside, as the Writ
Petition filed was highly misconceived in law and misdirected in fact.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No.15
on behalf of the Respondent No.11, wherein it has been inter alia stated as
under:
i) The Track Rent Permission was granted by the Tahsildar,
Anthiyur Taluk to one Thavasiappan and 9 others for drawing water from a
well in R.S.No.112/2A2 by laying pipelines through patta and poramboke
lands. While granting such permission, it was made clear by the Tahsildar
that necessary permission should be obtained from other concerned
Departments. Based on the permission already given to draw water, on an
application, the Divisional Engineer, Highways Department granted similar
permission with certain conditions.
ii) In a connected matter in W.P.No.17579 of 2021 filed by one
Tmt.Menaka, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the site
and submit a report. Before the Advocate Commissioner, it was duly
established that the pipelines for the agricultural irrigation purposes were
laid only on the roads permitted by the Highways Department. In yet
another cases in W.P.Nos.12351 of 2021 and 1665 of 2021 filed by one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
Arulmurugan, this Court, by an order dated 06.09.2024 observed as
follows:
“2. According to the petitioners, they are the owners of
the agricultural lands situated in the near vicinity of Nagalur
Village. However, the petitioners and two others were
approved to draw water from the fifth pumping station. In the
meantime, the private respondents were trying to divide the
water further form the fifth pumping station without any iota of
right and were trying to deprive the rights of the petitioners.
Whileso, the petitioners sent a detailed representation on
08.09.2020 to the official respondents requesting them to
prevent the said act of the private respondents. Since no action
has been taken by the authorities, the petitioners have filed a
writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.13940 of 2020
seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 therein consider
their representation dated 08.09.2020 and the same was
disposed of vide order dated 05.10.2020 directing the
respondents 1 to 3 therein to consider the said representation
within a period of four weeks from the date of said order,
pursuant to which the first respondent herein has passed the
impugned order dated 12.11.2020 stating that said issue does
not fall within his domain. Challenging the same,
W.P.No.1665 of 2021 has been filed. Subsequently, the
petitioners have also sent representations before the official
respondents seeking to take action against the private
respondents to disconnect their service connections. Since no
action has been taken, W.P.No.12351 of 2021 has been filed.
3. Though very many grounds have been raised in the
present writ petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the
petitioners representation was considered and the impugned
order has been passed by the first respondent stating that the
said issue will not come within his domain. Challenging the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
same, another writ petition in W.P.No.1665 of 2021 has been
filed. Subsequently, the petitioners made another
representations dated 11.03.2021 and 26.03.2021 seeking a
direction to the official respondents to take action for the illegal
service connection effected in favour of the private respondent.
He further submitted that since the issue involved is
interconnected between the petitioners and the private
respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioners restricted
his prayer and sought permission of this Court to grant liberty
to the respective petitioners to canvass all their grievances
before the competent civil Court.
4. Heard the respective counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials placed on record.
5. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the respective petitioners, this Court grants liberty
to the petitioners to canvass all their grievances before the
competent civil Court as against the private respondents in a
manner known to law.”
iii) It was finally stated in the counter affidavit that the
appellants bear no nexus whatsoever to the impugned allegations and the
sanction of subterranean pipeline operations reposes exclusive with the
Respondent Nos.11 and 15, who conferred such permission predicated upon
the solemn grant of Track Rent permission by the 17th Respondent. In case
of occurrence of any flagrant transgression of the stipulated conditions, then
only the Respondent Nos.11 and 15 wield its disciplinary hand against such
violations.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
9. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.19 & 20 / Sangam
contended that the Sangam of R19 & R290 has been constituted for the
welfare of agriculturists, cultivating lands along the Lower Bhavani and the
appellants, in blatant contravention of law, indulged in the illegal tapping of
Bhavani River water under the guise of Track Rent Permits. He further
contended that within the prohibited buffer zone of 200 meters from the
riverbed, the appellants have surreptitiously dug near four wells without
obtaining any lawful permission, violating the prohibitions imposed by the
Government. The Track Rent Permit has been misused by the appellants for
the purpose of lift irrigation, as the said permit has been issued only to lay
pipelines. To add fuel to the fire, even the Executive Engineer has admitted
that the wells were dug in the prohibited area and the appellants have been
caught in their own web and their actions are a flagrant breach of law. The
Tahsildar, vide proceedings dated 20.10.2023, has enumerated the
violations chapter and verse, on account of which, the appellants are
indulged in illegal tapping of water and the Tahsildar has recommended for
cancellation of the Track Rent Permit. Therefore, it was prayed that the
Writ Appeal is to be dismissed in limine.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is
no proof adduced by the Writ Petitioner in support of his allegation that the
appellants have been drawing water directly from the Bhavani River. He
drew the attention of this Court to the judgment of Apex Court in the case
of Union of India vs. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited and another, reported
in 2022 (13) SCC 362, to state that general sweeping observations, which
are beyond the contours of the controversy should not be made. The
relevant passage of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
“3. Having heard Shri Balbir Singh, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the Union of
India and Shri Gaurav Juneja, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no.1 herein and having gone through the
observations made by the High Court in the last paragraph of
its order, made while disposing of the writ petition, reproduced
hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the observations made
by the High Court, reproduced hereinabove, were absolutely
unwarranted. The High Court was not deciding a Public
Interest Litigation. The High Court did not even decide the writ
petition on merits. On the contrary, in the earlier paragraph, it
was observed that it had not gone into the merits of the writ
petitioner's claim or the respondent's defence. In such
circumstances, such general observations should have been
avoided by the High Court and the High Court ought to have
restricted itself to the controversy between the parties before it.
Even otherwise, on the basis of a solitary case, general
observations could not have been made by the High Court that
the Indian bidders are being discriminated against. We advise
the High Courts not to make general observations which are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
not warranted in the case. The High Courts shall refrain from
making sweeping observations which are beyond the contours
of the controversy and/or issues before them.”
11. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that
the appellants have not been tapping water illegally and they had already
obtained a Track Rent Permit from the Tahsildar. The Writ Petitioner has
not challenged the said permit before any Court of Law and any person
aggrieved must seek redressal through the due process of law. The Supreme
Court in Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla vs. Hargovind Jasraj and
another, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 182 categorically held that no
administrative or statutory order can be brushed aside or treated as otiose,
except upon a categorical judicial pronouncement.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that there
are 80 agriculturists benefitted under the Scheme, which is in operation
from 2018 and have been enjoying the water for irrigation purpose
appellants. The farmers generate income out of their cultivation in paddy
field and their livelihood are sought to be stalled by persons like that of the
Writ Petitioner. The Supreme Court, while describing the umbilical linkage
between the land and the farmer's very existence in society in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
Bhusawal Municipal Council vs. Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak and
Others, reported in 2015 (14) SCC 327, enumerated the plight of
agriculturists, observing as under:
“18. A farmer's life is a tale of continuous experimentation and
struggle for existence. Mere words or a visual can never convey what it
means to live a life as an Indian farmer. Unless one experiences their
struggle, that headache he will never know how it feels. The risks faced by
the farming community are many; they relate to natural calamities such as
drought and floods; high fluctuation in the prices of input as well as output,
over which he has no control whatsoever; a credit system which never
extends a helping hand to the neediest; domination by middlemen who
enjoy the fruits of a farmer's hard work; spurious inputs, and the recent
phenomenon of labour shortages, which can be conveniently added to his
tale of woes. Of late, there have been many cases of desperate farmers
ending their lives in different parts of the country. The Principles of
Economics provides for the producer of a commodity to determine his
prices but an Indian farmer perhaps is the only exception to this principle
of economics, for even getting a decent price for their produce is difficult
for them."
13. Thus, it was finally argued that any attempt to thwart the
irrigation scheme or dispossess the appellants would be tantamount to
striking at the root of their right to livelihood and undermining
constitutional guarantees and therefore, the order of the learned Single
Judge is liable to set aside.
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent
contended that unless omnibus directions are given by this Court, the theft
of water cannot be curtailed, as the authorities are hand in glove with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
appellants, who, in the garb of possession of Track Rent Permit, have been
extracting water from Bhavani River unauthorizedly. Learned Single Judge
analyzed various provisions of law and passed a well considered order in
the interest of protecting water flowing in the Bhavani river, which does not
warrant any interference by this Court. Learned Single Judge meticulously
directed the respondents therein to verify the correctness of permissions
relating to to the extraction of water to ensure that the sacred nectar of
irrigation is regulated strictly within the four corners of law and in harmony
with established rules and regulations. It was further ordained that any
permissions tainted with illegality should be annulled, as permission, if any
given, to dig wells within 200 metres radius from the river bed is expressly
illegal. Learned Single Judge, with a view to curb activities that occur
within the prohibited radius, specifically and rightly directed the
respondents therein to take action. The Sangam is being run by only self-
interested persons and its Office bearers collect huge amount from farmers
by promising to supply water to irrigate their lands and with the amount
collected, they illegally draw water from Bhavani River. Their main
intention is to dry the River, so that they can mint money in the guise of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
supply of water to poor farmers for their cultivations of lands, which is
nothing, but a commercial exploitation of river water without proper
permission from the Government. It was vehemently argued by learned
counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that since the appellants acted
contrary to the established rules, there is no need to show leniency to the
appellants and the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
15. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the material documents available on record.
16. The Writ Petitioner alleged that the appellants, who are
Respondent Nos.20 & 21 in the Writ Petition have been illegally extracting
water from Bhavanisagar River using pipelines that were laid without
proper approval. It was also alleged that the act of the appellants was the
root cause for the water scarcity and agricultural distress in and around the
area. Learned Single Judge, upon hearing both sides, directed the
authorities to verify the Track Rent Permission purported to be given to the
appellants, regulate extraction, ensure equal distribution of water for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
agriculturists. It was also directed to prosecute against the erring Officials,
who committed irregularities in protecting the Bhavanisagar River.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants are
before this Court on the ground that they were not given an opportunity of
being heard and that the Writ Petitioner cannot be termed to be an
aggrieved party.
17. According to the appellants, the averments raised in the
Writ Petition were in the form of Public Interest Litigation, whereas the
Writ Petitioner had projected, as if he is before this Court for his own cause.
It was urged by the appellants that in the absence of any challenge to the
Track Rent Permit that was already obtained by them, the appellants cannot
be prevented in distributing water to the needy agriculturists. The irrigation
scheme introduced by them benefitted nearly 80 farmers and any hindrance
in such distribution will affect their livelihood protected under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.
18. On the side of the Writ Petitioner, it was strenuously
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
contended that the Writ Petitioner clearly established the illegal digging of
water by the appellants and there was a high misuse of the permit in the
guise of providing water to farmers through pipelines. Even though there
was a condition, while issuing the Track Rent Permit, the authorities turn a
blind eye to the violations of the appellants. The appellants were digging
wells in the area situated within 200 metres radius from the river bed, which
is prohibited radius. The appellants, in the garb of espousing the cause of
poor and innocent agriculturists, have been collecting huge sums of money
from them and utilizing the said sum for their own welfare.
19. It is pertinent to mention here that the Track Rent Permit
will not give exclusive / unfettered rights to the appellants to dig wells and
illegally extract water, especially within prohibited zones. No evidence was
put forth by the appellants to refute charges of unauthorized extraction. The
appellants in general indicted that 80 agriculturists got benefitted on
account of their scheme without any documentary evidence. The appellants
did not demonstrate lawful entitlement to draw water beyond permitted use
nor disprove the allegations of causing agricultural harm.
20. The legal doctrine cited by the appellants regarding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
'aggrieved person' will not weigh much importance, when public resources
and the rights of a broader class are at stake. The judgment cited by the
appellants in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhkan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra
(supra) is distinguishable, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge,
because the water extraction issue affects wide agriculturists' interests
beyond mere personal grievance. The Apex Court in the case of
M.C.Mehra vs. Kamal Nath, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3121 set a precedent
way back in the year 1996 on the strict regulations and judicial oversight on
unauthorized use of natural resources like water to prevent harm to the
public and environment. The said ruling mandates prevention of
commercial exploitation and depletion of water resources in violation of
law.
21. Looking at any angle, the order of the learned Single Judge
was within the proper legal bounds, balancing individual and the interest of
the society at large. The directions issued therein were only for regulatory
oversight, cancellation of illegal permissions and safeguarding equitable
water distribution and in our view, such directions are necessary for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
public interest and lawful governance. Therefore, the well considered order
passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference from
this Court.
22. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed as devoid of
merits. The Authorities are directed to strictly adhere to the directions
issued by the learned Single Judge in letter and spirit and safeguard water
resources in the interest of our Nation's prosperity and welfare. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(J.N.B.J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
16.09.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
To:
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department, Secretariat,
St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
TANGEDCO, 6th Floor, TANTRANSCO Building,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
3. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Chennai -600 034.
4. The Engineer-in-Chief,
(Water Resources and Organization) &
Chief Engineer (General),
Public Works Department, Chepauk-600 005.
5. The District Collector,
District Collectorate, Erode District.
6. The Chief Engineer,
Water Resources and Organization &
Public Works Department, Town Hall, Coimbatore.
7. The District Revenue Officer,
Office of the District Revenue Office,
Erode District.
8. The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO, EDC/Gobi, Tiruppur Road,
Vettaikarankovil, Nagadevanpalayam Post,
Gobichettipalayam, Erode District-638 476.
9. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.
10. The Divisional Engineer,
Department of Highways,
Office of the Divisional Engineer,
Moolapalayam, Erode District-638 002.
11. The Assistant Commissioner,
HR & CE Department, Erode Zone, Erode.
12. The Executive Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Gobichettipalayam,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
EDC/Gobi, Erode District.
13. The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offences Wing,
State Bank Road, Erode,
Erode District.
14. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department, (Construction and Maintenance),
Bhavani, Erode District.
15. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Anthiyur, Erode District.
16. The Tahsildhar,
Anthiyur Taluk,
Erode District.
17. The Block Development Officer,
Block Development Office,
Anthiyur Taluk, Thavuttupalayam,
Anthiyur, Erode District.
18. The Executive Engineer,
Bhavanisagar Dam Division,
Bhavani, Erode District-638 451.
19. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Water Resources and Organization and
Public Works Department, Bhavani Division,
Bhavani-638 301, Erode District.
J.NISHA BANU, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN
16.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
