22Nd September vs District Magistrate Tehri & ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2829 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                  AT NAINITAL
                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                          AND
                      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL

                      SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2023
                          22ND SEPTEMBER, 2023
Mahaveer Singh                                                    .....Appellant.
                                        Versus

District Magistrate Tehri & others                                ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder.

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned counsel.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

The present special appeal is directed against the

judgment dated 23.08.2023, passed by the learned Single

Judge, in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2380 of 2023.

2. By the impugned judgment, the writ petition

preferred by the appellant- writ petitioner has been

dismissed. The appellant had preferred the said writ petition

to seek a mandamus against the respondents not to replace

the earlier installed water pipelines, with pipelines of larger

diameter, and the appellant desired that the replaced

pipelines should also be of the same diameter.

3. It was the case of the appellant- writ petitioner that

he was residing at a height, where the natural water source

was located. He claimed that with the replacement of 1.5

inches pipelines by 2 inches pipelines, there would be water

shortage experienced by the appellant- writ petitioner, as

more water would flow down in the pipelines due to gravity.

The stand of the respondents before the learned Single Judge

was that the earlier pipelines were also of 2 inches diameter.

It was also stated by the respondents that the petitioner had

preferred the writ petition out of spite, since he was not

awarded the contract for the replacement of the pipelines.

4. Mr. Kothari submits that there was no such tender

issued, and there was no question of the petitioner

participating therein.

5. The learned Single Judge has not found any merit

in the petitioner's submissions, as the issue with regard to

the replacement of the pipelines is a matter of policy, and it is

not for the petitioner to decide on the said issue.

6. We have heard Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the

appellant. He submits that with the replacement of the

existing pipelines with the pipelines of 2 inches diameter, the

appellant and others residing at higher reaches would suffer

scarcity of water in summer months.

7. This submission is based on mere apprehension

and imagination. That cannot be the foundation for filing of

the petition. Just like other villagers, the appellant- writ

petitioner is also entitled to receive sufficient water to meet

his needs. In case, there is any shortage of water for any

reason, whatsoever, it shall be open to the appellant- writ

petitioner to raise a grievance with regard to the same before

the respondent- authorities, and if his grievances are not

redressed, it is open to him to approach the Court.

8. We do not find any merit in this appeal, and the

same is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.) Dated: 22nd September, 2023 NISHANT