Mahaveer Singh vs District Magistrate
2023 Latest Caselaw 2432 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Writ Petition (M/S) No.2380 of 2023
Mahaveer Singh                                           ....Petitioner

                               Versus

District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal
and Others                                         ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Anil Kumar Dabral, Addl. C.S.C. with Mr. Suyash Pant,
            Standing Counsel for the State.
            Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondent no.3.


                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of this petition, the petitioner seeks

the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the

nature of mandamus directing the

respondents not to replace the earlier

pipe lines with the pipe lines of larger

diameter and the earlier pipe lines may

be replaced by the pipes of same

diameter.

(ii) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction

which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit

and proper under the facts and

circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award costs of the petition to the

petitioner."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the

resident of village Asgarh, District Tehri Garhwal. In his

village, there is a natural source of water, which feeds many

other villages. Geographically, the village of the petitioner is at

a height. The respondent no.3, Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, is

supplying water to some other villages, who are geographically

at lower altitude. Earlier, there was a 1.5 inches pipe line to

those villages, but now the respondent no.3 is replacing those

pipe lines with two inches pipelines. It is the case of the

petitioner that if the pipelines are changed from 1.5 inches to

2 inches, it may create scarcity of water in the village of the

petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the village of the petitioner is at a height, which has a

natural water source. It supplies water to some other villages,

which are on the lower side of the hills. Earlier, there was 1.5

inches pipeline, which is now being replaced with 2 inches

pipeline. It is argued that if the pipeline is changed to the

higher diameter, it may take more water from the source, and

would create scarcity of water in the village of the petitioner.

He would also submit that, in fact, the villagers have objected

to the functioning of the respondent no.3, with regard to

laying of pipelines of larger diameter.

5. Distribution of water in the village or other areas

is a policy matter and it has various factors attached to it,

including population, need, quantity of water available at the

source, etc. Unless there are some very startling revelation,

perhaps, in such matter, this Court should be much slow to

intervene.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that he had issued

a notice to the respondent no.3, Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan

The reply to the notice is Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. It

speaks that, in fact, the diameter of the pipeline is not being

changed. It was 2 inches earlier and it is being replaced by a

pipeline, which is two inches, now. The reply says that these

are the records available. According to this reply, it is the

petitioner, who wanted to get contract of the work of laying

pipelines in other villages. When he was not successful in

getting the work, he started creating various obstructions in

the village.

7. Even, it is the apprehension of the petitioner

that if the pipeline is changed, they will face scarcity of water.

This Court has no material to ascertain as to what is the

volume of water available at the source, which supplies water

to the village of the petitioner and to other villages. As stated,

distribution of water may depend upon various factors

namely, population, need, etc., the apprehension of the

petitioner that due to laying pipeline their villagers may face

scarcity of water may not be said to be based on any material.

These are all in the realm of speculation.

8. Having considered the entirety of facts, this

Court is of the view that this matter does not require

intervention of this Court, at this stage. Accordingly, the writ

petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission

itself.

9. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 23.08.2023 Ravi Bisht