Madras High Court
S.Ramamirtham vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 April, 2005
Author: M.Karpagavinayagam
Bench: M.Karpagavinayagam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01/04/2005
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
AND
THE HON'ALE MR.JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN
WRIT PETITION No.1833 of 2005
AND W.P.Nos. 4985 OF 2005 AND 31490 OF 2004
S.Ramamirtham ... Petitioner in W.P.No.1833 of 2005
Somesuvarapuram Girama Vivasaya
Nala Pathukappu Sangam,
rep.by its President,
D.B.S.Vikraman. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.4985 of 2005
P.Ramalingam ... Petitioner in W.P.No.31490 of 2004
-Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Managing Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
and Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chindadripet,
Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondents in W.P.Nos.1833 and
4985 of 2005
1.The Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Managing Director,
Metro Water Supply
and Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondents in W.P.No.31490 of 2004
!For petitioner in W.P.No.1833 of 2005 : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram,
Senior Counsel,
for Ms.Gladys Daniel
For petitioner in W.P.No.4985 of 2005 : Mr.T.Mohan
for Ms.Gladys Daniel
For petitioner in W.P.No.31490 of 2004 :
Mr.R.Viduthalai
for Mr.T.Meikandan
^For respondent 1 in W.P.Nos.1833 and 4985 of 2005
and respondent Nos.1&2 in W.P.No.31490 of 2004 :
Mr.N.R.Chandran,
Advocate General,
assisted by Mr.K.Mahendran,
Spl.G.P.
For respondent 2 in W.P.Nos.1833 and 4985 of 2005
and respondent No.3 in W.P.No.31490 of 2004 :
Mr.A.L.Somayaji,
Addl.Advocate General,
assisted by
Mr.K.N.Pandian.
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus.
:COMMON ORDER
M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM,J.
The Great Saint Thiruvalluvar says:
(Vernacular portion deleted) "Irupunalum vaynta malaiyum varupunalum Vallaranum nattirku uruppu." (Tirukkural-737)
2. Meaning of the above couplet is :
"The waters on the surface of the land and the rains that fall from the sky, as well as the mountains, rivers and forts make the country prosperous."
3. The expression ',Ug[dy;;' indicates two sources of water i.e., the surface water and the rain water. The word 'tUg[dy;' means, water which comes through rivers.
4. We, in Tamil Nadu, have problems on ',Ug[dy;', namely, surface water and rain water, as well as on 'tUg[dy;', in the sense that we do not have adequate rainfall, nor do we get adequate and even the tribunal approved water from the Cauvery River.
5. So, in this context, we are constrained to give a different meaning of ',Ug[dy;' as instead of surface water and rain water, it could be meant as surface water and sub-soil water, which is very relevant to today's conditions of water scarcity, particularly in Tamil Nadu.
6. On account of scarcity of water due to problems on surface water and river water, actually, the State is now trying to implement the New Veeranam Extension Project, to extract sub-surface water, by tapping the same from Kollidam river bed and taking to Chennai, in order to provide drinking water to the people, which is the primary need of the people.
7. For stopping the said Project of tapping of water from Kollidam river, the petitioners, hailing from four districts around Kollidam river, have tapped the great doors of this Chartered High Court, by way of these Public Interest Litigations.
8. Petitioners in these three Writ Petitions have sought for a writ of mandamus, against the State Government Organs, namely, the respondents, forbearing them from implementing the New Veeranam Extension Project in Kollidam River, and restraining them from drawing subsurface water through giant bore wells, to be sunk in six locations near Kollidam River, for bringing water to Chennai City.
9. Since the prayers in all these Writ Petitions are similar, a common order is being passed.
10. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these Writ Petitions are as follows :
"Chennai City has been frequently facing Drinking Water problem. The Government and the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board have been taking all possible measures, to provide the minimum required water to Chennai City, by augmenting water supply from different sources. In the year 1969, first Veeranam Project was conceived. The Project envisaged transport of water through cement pipes from Veeranam Lake to Chennai City. In the year 1991, another Veeranam Project was conceived and the same was approved by the Government on 03 .04.1996. The expected permanent solution of getting 12 TMC of water under the Telugu Ganga Project from Andhra Pradesh, which was commissioned in the year 1996, has not been fulfilled. Hence, the Government has taken up the implementation of New Veeranam Project, which was commenced on 24.11.2002. The Project work was completed in May,2004 . Water was conveyed from Neyveli Aquifer up to September,2004. The Government felt that the New Veeranam Project would be a dependable water supply source to Chennai City, even when there is no enough storage of water in city reservoirs. From 13.10.2004 onwards, water is being drawn from Veeranam Lake at the rate of 180 MLD and supplied to the city residents and it is being continued till date, without any interruption. The extraction of water from Neyveli Aquifer and Veeranam Lake has not affected the ground water potential in that area, as per the periodical statistics of water levels and quality of water. Due to continuous drought for the past three years in the area around Chennai, the ground water table had gone down in Chennai and surrounding areas. However, during the year 2004-2005, there was a good rainfall in the Kollidam River. However, it was found out, that during the summer season, water in Veeranam Lake may not be sufficient for drawal. Under those circumstances, the State Government has decided to implement a project called New Veeranam Extension Project at an estimated cost of Rs.300 crores, to draw 150 MLD of sub-surface water in Kollidam riverbed, by constructing six collector wells at six locations, pump the same to Sethiathope and then to Chennai, through the New Veeranam Project infrastructure. This decision was taken by the Government only after a detailed study, which was carried out by the experts. Fearing that such a move would be completely detrimental to the interests of the villagers of four districts, namely, Perambalur, Thanjavur, Thiruvarur and Nagapattinam, near the Kollidam river, the petitioners have filed these three Writ Petitions, as pro bono publico."
11. The main grounds urged by Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel; Mr.T.Mohan and Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned counsel for the petitioners, based on their affidavits, could be summarised as follows :
(1) Kollidam is the vadigal of Cauvery. Already, 30 wells have been dug under Drinking Water Scheme in Kollidam River, feeding 2224 towns and villages, using 140 MLD of water. During the period from February to June, Mettur Dam will be closed. Hence, there will not be any flow of water in Cauvery. During this period, the agricultural and drinking water needs are met only by bore wells. The additional drawal of 150 MLD of water through the six collector wells through the Veeranam Project would deplete the existing 30 wells. When there is no flow of water in Cauvery, there will not be any water in Kollidam River and Veeranam Lake. By tapping water excessively from Kollidam River, there is a possibility of non-potable water seeping into the wells. This Project is being implemented for the purpose of meeting the drinking water needs of the residents of Chennai, by giving preferential treatment and ignoring the hardship being caused to the agriculturists in the aforementioned four districts.
(2) There is already a proposal for setting up Desalination Project with the capacity of 100 to 200 MLD of water at Minjur, near Chennai. The said Project will reduce the deficiency of water in Chennai to a large extent.
Further, Neyveli Aquifer w come to the rescue of providing water from its bore wells as and when Veeranam Lake gets depleted. The Government has also constructed four barrages across the river Cauvery between between Mettur and Bhavani and the construction of other three barrages is in progress between Bhavani and Kodumudi. Telugu Ganga Project has already been implemented and the Chennai City gets water from that Project. So, Rs.300 crore investment on the Extension Project would go a waste.
(3) The Tamil Nadu Legislature has already passed Tamil Nadu Ground Water (Development and Management) Act, 2003. The said Act contemplates the constitution of a Committee, which alone has the power to direct and regulate the development and management of ground water resources in the State. The necessity for bringing water from Kollidam River to Veeranem Lake can be analysed only by the said Committee. Further, the Central Ground Water Authority has been constituted as per the orders of the Supreme Court. Admittedly, the State Government has neither followed the procedure prescribed in the Act nor consulted the Central Ground Water Authority, constituted by the Central Government. The Government claims that the Project is implemented on the basis of the recommendation through the report by the Expert Committee. However, claiming immunity, the State refused to furnish a copy of the report to the petitioners, even though the same has been placed before this Court in a sealed cover for its perusal. The Government cannot claim privilege in respect of the said document, as it would not fulfil the requirement of Section 123 of the Evidence Act. The petitioners are entitled to a copy of the said report, so that they can make their submissions with reference to the contents of the same."
12. The gist of the submissions made by Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General and Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, by way of reply, as contained in their counter affidavits and other records, is as follows :
(1) Chennai City, which is a Metropolitan City, has always drinking water problem. It is the responsibility of the State to provide minimum requirement of drinking water to the residents of Chennai City as that of the other places. In order to provide drinking water, the Veeranam Project was launched. This will help to meet the water requirement of the residents of Chennai City to a great extent, even during the peak summer. Due to continuous drought for the past three years, the ground water table had gone down in Chennai. There was a heavy rainfall in the Kollidam River during the year 2004-2005. Consequently, the ground water table has risen considerably.
It is now found out that there will be no adequate storage of water in Veeranam Lake during summer. Therefore, expecting that there will be no adequate storage of water in Veeranam Lake and considering the fact that Chennai City suffered drought for the past continuous three years and consequently the ground water table has gone down, the State Government, in order to maintain the drinking water supply to Chennai City, has proposed to implement the new Veeranam Extension Project, drawing sub-surface water from the Kollidam River, by constructing six collector wells. This Extension Project will be functional only during summer season, that too when there is no water in Veeranam Lake.
(2) The proposal regarding Desalination Project may not come through soon so as to cater to the drinking water needs of Chennai City people The proposal regarding construction of barrages will lead the river to spread over to the adjacent lands, thereby causing submersion of irrigated land in and around either side of Killidam river. Hence, construction of barrages is not advisable. Though through Telugu Ganga Project water has to be drawn for meeting the needs of Chennai City people, the expected permanent solution of getting 12 TMC of water through the said Project has not been fulfilled due to various reasons. From Veeranam Lake, the Government is drawing surface water only. When there is no water in Veeranam Lake, it is proposed to take sub-surface water in Killidam riverbed. Even when there is no water in Veeranam Lake, there will be sub-surface water in Kollidam river, as per the Expert Committee Report. A detail ed study was carried out by the State Experts from various Departments. It was assessed by the said Expert Committee that about 150 MLD of water can be drawn from sub-surface of Kollidam riverbed, by constructing six collector wells. According to the Experts, the water potential in sub-surface of river Kollidam is about 2360 MLD. Out of the same, there is a proposal to extract only 150 MLD of water, which is 6.5% of the total potential. This extraction would not affect the present and future requirements of TWAD Board Schemes and Irrigation Systems in the nearby districts of Kollidam river. The collector well's depth varies from 16.5 mts. to 24.30 mts. and the spacing between any two collector wells is not less than 1000 mts. The locations for these six collector wells have been carefully chosen by the Experts in suitable areas. Drawing sub-surface water will not be detrimental to the agricultural operations in and around the Kollidam area, since the water to be drawn is below the bed level of Kollidam river. The State Government has approved the Scheme only after conducting a detailed investigation and after ascertaining the fact that the interests of the farmers will not be affected at any cost. Officials led by the District Collector and the Ministers visited the said four districts; met farmers; farmers placed some suggestions for consideration and those suggestions were considered and accepted.
(3) The State Government constituted an Expert Committee for investigating into the issue and the Committee consists of (1) Chief Engineer (State Ground and Surface Water Data Centre), Public Works Department, Chennai; (2) Chief Engineer (Water Research Organisation), Chennai Region, Chennai; (3) Engineering Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply And Drainage Board, Chennai; and (4) Chief Engineer (Chennai Water Supply Augmentation Project-I), CMWSSB, Chennai. A detailed field investigation was conducted. It was followed by a discussion with the Experts. Ultimately, a report has been submitted, recommending for construction of six collector wells and for drawal of 150 MLD of water per day. Based on the above recommendations, 150 MLD of water was treated as additional source and this will be utilised as supplemental to the New Veeranam Project, only when there is no water in Veeranam Lake, that too during summer season. The officers appointed by the Government, constituting a Study Team, would satisfy the qualifications of the competent officers, as contemplated under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Ground Water (Development and Management) Act,2003, even though the said Act has not come into force. When a Special Committee, consisting of Experts, had been constituted and a detailed report was submitted after detailed discussions and deliberations on the basis of the inspection and other tests carried out by it, there is no necessity for the State Government to consult the Central Ground Water Authority, appointed by the Central Government to go into the very same question. Further, the report has been accepted by the Government, after a thorough study and, as such, a policy decision has been taken to implement the New Veeranam Extension Project. Since the report, which contains technical details with reference to the methodology of pumping water from Kollidam river onwards is so confidential and has to be safeguarded from being revealed to others taking care of public interest, the State Government has decided to place the entire report only for the Court's perusal, claiming immunity, and, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to get a copy of the said report, as there is apprehension by the Government that there may be a possible misuse and abuse of the said report, by the vested interests. It is well settled that a decision taken on a public policy and also an action of the Government on the basis of public policy cannot be questioned and interfered with by the Court, particularly when no mala fide is alleged, that too in these Public Interest Litigations, filed by the petitioners, who have no locus standi."
13. On the above lines, elaborate arguments are advanced by Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel; Mr.T.Mohan and Mr.R. Viduthalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr.N.R. Chandran, learned Advocate General, and Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.
14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions and perused the records and also the copy of the Expert Committee Report, submitted by the learned Advocate General.
15. Raising as a preliminary issue, Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General, would oppose the locus standi of the petitioners, to file these Writ Petitions as pro bono publico, in the form of Public Interest Litigations. According to him, these Writ Petitions are filed with an oblique motive to delay the Project and, as such, they are liable to be dismissed, by imposing suitable costs. He would cite the following decisions :
(i) 2002 (2) SCC 333 (BALCO EMPLOYEES' UNION V. UNION OF INDIA);
(ii) 2004 (3) SCC 349 (ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL);
(iii) 2004 (3) SCC 363 (DR.B.SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA);
(iv) 2004 (5) CTC 748 (DATTARAJ NATHUJI THAWARE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA);
(v) 2004 (6) SCC 661 (P.M.BHARGAVA & ORS. V. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION);
(vi) 2004 (5) CTC 554 (RAMA MUTHURAMALINGAM V. DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE) and
(vii) 2005 (1) MLJ (252) PERUNDURAI CITIZENS WELFARE SOCIETY V. TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD).
16. All the above decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court would deal with the principles, laid down over the question of maintainability of Public Interest Litigation.
17. Instead of quoting observations with reference to the said point from each and every citation, it would be appropriate to refer to Para 78 in the case of BALCO EMPLOYEES' UNION V. UNION OF INDIA (2002 (2) SCC 333) alone, wherein the comprehensive parameters have been given, to satisfy the requirement of a Public Interest Litigation, which reads as under:
"78.While PIL initially was invoked mostly in cases connected with the relief to the people and the weaker sections of the society and in areas where there was violation of human rights under Article 21, but with the passage of time, petitions have been entertained in other spheres. Prof.S.B.Sathe has summarised the extent of the jurisdiction which has now been exercised in the following words:
(A) 'Where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared widely by a large number of people (bonded labour, undertrial prisoners, prison inmates).
(B) 'Where the affected persons belong to the disadvantaged sections of society (women, children, bonded labour, unorganised labour etc.).
(C) 'Where judicial law making is necessary to avoid exploitation ( inter-country adoption, the educationof the children of the prostitutes).
(D) 'Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions (independence of the judiciary, existence of grievances redressal forums).
(E) 'Where administrative decisions related to development are harmful to the environment and jeopardize people's right to natural resources such as air or water." (emphasis supplied)
18. In the light of the above parameters, endorsed by the Supreme Court, if we look into these Writ Petitions, we are of the view that these petitions would fit in with the last category, namely, (E).
19. Admittedly, the petitioners have challenged the State's administrative decisions to draw water from Kollidam River by constructing collector wells for the purpose of supplying to the City of Chennai for drinking purpose. It is mentioned in the affidavits that when the Ministers and the Officials of the Government visited the scene and explained to the people to clear the doubts about the Project, there were agitations like dharnas, fasts etc. by the public at the district level and the news regarding those agitations have been published in the newspapers. To substantiate the same, newspaper reports have been filed in the Typed Set in Writ Petition No.1833 of 2005, giving the news, protesting the proposed New Veeranam Extention Project, by the public.
20. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that several Presidents of various Panchayats sent representations to the Chief Minister, Prime Minister, opposing the said move and requesting for dropping of the same. Besides this, a copy of the F.I.R. registered by the police on 25.12.2004 has been filed along with the Additional Typed Set, which would indicate that a case had been registered on 25.12.200 4 for the agitation conducted by the villagers, among whom, Ministers and Officials conducted awareness camp, in order to allay their fears over the Project and to clear their doubts.
21. This apart, a supporting affidavit has also been filed by one Senkutuvan, after obtaining the signatures of the inhabitants of the four districts, namely, Perambalur, Thanjavur, Thiruvarur and Nagapattinam in support of the Writ Petition and the same has been annexed to the affidavit. The signatures obtained in a separate sheet are numbering more than 500.
22. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have come forward with public interest in this Public Interest Litigation, only representing the public, whose interests are allegedly affected, that too under last Category, namely, the Public Interest Litigation against the administrative decisions which are harmful and jeopardize the rights of the people to natural resources like water, as contained in para 78 of Balco Employees' Union case, referred to above. Hence, the contention urged by the learned Advocate General with regard to the locus standi of the petitioners in these Public Interest Litigations, in our view, is not tenable and the same is, accordingly, rejected.
23. Another preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate General is this : The decision taken by the Government was only on the basis of the report of the Expert Committee. The Expert Committee, which is a Study Team, consists of four Chief Engineers of different Departments, concerning the issue. After a detailed field investigation, a discussion was made with various Experts and, ultimately, the Expert Committee recommended for construction of collector wells for drawal of 150 MLD of water and, accepting the recommendation, the Government took a decision on public policy, for implementing the New Veeranam Extension Project and this public policy cannot be interfered with by the Judiciary, especially in the absence of any mala fide on the part of the Government and its officials. (emphasis supplied)
24. The learned Advocate General would cite the decisions, namely, 1 993 (4) SCC 119 (R.K.JAIN V. UNION OF INDIA); 2002 (2) SCC 333 ( BALCO EMPLOYEES' UNION V. UNION OF INDIA); 1981 (1) SCC 568 (FERTILIZER CORPORATION, KAMGAR UNION (REGD.) V. UNION OF INDIA); 1992 (2) SCC 343 (PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD. V. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA); 1994 (2) SCC 691 (PREMIUM GRANITES V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU); 1 981 (4) SCC 675 (R.K.GARG V. UNION OF INDIA); 1997 (7) SCC 592 (M.P. OIL EXTRACTION V. STATE OF MADHYA PRDESH) and 2000 (10) SCC 664 ( NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA).
25. Let us now quote the relevant passages.
26. In FERTILIZER CORPORATION, KAMGAR UNION (REGD.) V. UNION OF INDIA (1981 (1) SCC 568), it has been held as under :
"....The Court cannot usurp or abdicate and the parameters of judicial review must be clearly defined and never exceeded.... This function is limited to testing whether the administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of unreasonableness and has substantially complied with the norms of procedure set for it by rules of public administration."
27. In PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO.LTD. V. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (1992 (2) SCC 343), it has been observed by the Supreme Court as follows :
"The function of the Court is to see that lawful authority is not abused but not to appropriate to itself the task entrusted to that authority. It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its power.... Courts are not to interfere with economic policy which is the function of experts. It is not the function of the courts to sit in judgment over matters of economic policy and it must necessarily be left to the expert bodies. In such matters, even experts can seriously and doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be expected to decide them without even the aid of experts."
28. In PREMIUM GRANITES V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (1994 (2) SCC 691), it is held thus :
"It is not the domain of the Court to embark upon unchartered ocean of public policy in an exercise to consider as to whether a particular public policy is wise or a better public policy can be evolved. Such exercise must be left to the discretion of the executive and legislative authorities as the case may be."
29. In R.K.GARG V. UNION OF INDIA (1981 (4) SCC 675), it has been observed as under :
"How the resources of the country shall be used ? How the goals fixed shall be attained ? What are to be the safeguards to prevent the abuse of the economic power ? What is the mechanism of accountability to ensure that the decision regarding privatisation is in public interest ? All these questions have to be answered by a vigilant Parliament. Courts have their limitations - because these issues rest with the policy-makers for the nation. No direction can be given or is expected from the courts unless while implementing such policies, there is violation or infringement of any of the constitutional or statutory provision.... This Court cannot review and examine as to whether the said policy should have been adopted. Of course, whether there is any legal or constitutional bar in adopting such policy can certainly be examined by the Court."
30. In M.P.OIL EXTRACTION V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (1997 (7) SCC 5
92), it is observed as follows :
"Unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious and, not being informed by any reason whatsoever, can be clearly held to be arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of the executive functionaries thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution or such policy offends other constitutional provisions or comes into conflict with any statutory provision, the Court cannot and should not outstep its limit and tinker with the policy decision of the executive functionary of the State. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has sounded a note of caution by indicating that policy decision is in the domain of the executive authority of the State and the Court should not embark on the unchartered ocean of public policy and should not question the efficacy or otherwise of such policy so long the same does not offend any provision of the statute or the Constitution of India....."
31. In NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA (2000 (10) SCC 664), it is held by the Supreme Court as under :
"It is now well settled that the courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy-making process and the courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. The court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people's fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution."
32. In BALCO EMPLOYEES' UNION V. UNION OF INDIA (2002 (2) SCC 333), it is observed as follows :
"It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved......In a democracy,it is the prerogative o ch elected Government to follow its own policy.....Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court."
33. From the above observations of the Supreme Court relating to the power of judicial review over the policy decision, the following guidelines would emerge:
(1) Courts have their limitations, because, the issues relating to policy decision rest with the policy-makers for the nation. No direction can be given or is expected from the Courts unless, while implementing such policies, there is violation or infringement of any of the constitutional or statutory provision.
(2) The Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, has sounded a note of caution by indicating that policy decision is in the domain of the executive authority of the State and the Court should not embark on the unchartered ocean of public policy and should not question the efficacy or otherwise of such policy so long the same does not offend any provision of the statute or the Constitution of India.
(3) Courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy-making process and the Courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken.
(4) If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in pubic interest to require the court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. For any project, which is approved after due deliberation, the Court should refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government, is possible.
(5) In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each Government to follow its own policy and unless any illegality is committed and the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision per se interfered with by the Court.
34. The above guidelines would indicate that the policy decision taken by the elected Government cannot be normally interfered with. It is also clear from the above decisions that the Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of the country. Courts will interfere only when there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or non-compliance by the State with its constitutional or statutory duties and that too when there is a mala fide in taking the said policy decision.
35. Bearing the above guidelines in mind, let us now deal with the questions (a) Whether the policy decision taken by the Government in the instant case would suffer from any illegality ? or (b) would involve the violation of constitutional or statutory provisions ? or (c) would reflect any mala fide on the part of the Government ?
36. Even at the outset, it has to be observed that the learned counsel for the petitioners themselves fairly admit that they would not attribute any mala fide in regard to the implementation of the Project either against the State Government or its officials or any other authorities concerned. As a matter of fact, the petitioners have not chosen to challenge the Expert Committee Report, which is the basis for the policy decision taken by the State Government, on the ground that it is a mala fide one.
37. The only contention urged by Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, is, that the policy decision taken by the State Government in this case merely on the basis of the Expert Committee Report, without following the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Ground Water (Development and Management) Act, 20 03, and without getting the assistance from the Central Ground Water Authority, as notified by the Central Government, in pursuance of the Supreme Court order has to be interfered with.
38. To put it in a nutshell, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel and the other counsel for the petitioners is that the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Ground Water (Development and Management) Act, 2003, have not been followed, while policy decision was taken and, as such, the Government has shown unnecessary anxiety to draw water from Kollidam River, for supplying drinking water to the residents of Chennai, thereby giving preferential treatment to the residents of Chennai City alone and, as such, the policy decision is the product out of the violation of the statutory provisions.
39. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General and the Additional Advocate General, who appear for the respondents, would submit that it is the responsibility of the State to provide minimum requirement of drinking water to the residents of Chennai as that of the other places and as Telugu Ganga Project has not fulfilled the requirement, the Government has taken up the implementation of Veeranam Project, to augment the sources by 180 MLD of water to Chennai City, and the same was completed in May,2004, and also expecting that there will be no adequate water in Veeranam Lake in summer period, the State Government took a policy decision, to implement the New Veeranam Extension Project, for drawing sub-surface water from the River Kollidam, by constructing six collector wells, and as this implementation of the Project was on the basis of the policy decision taken by the Government, after a detailed study made by the Expert Committee, constituted by the State Government, from various Departments, which recommended that about 150 MLD of water can be drawn from the sub-surface of River Kollidam, which is only 6.5% of the total potential, and gave its opinion that this extraction may not affect the present and future requirements of TWAD Board Schemes and Irrigation Systems in and around Kollidam River, the same cannot be questioned in these Writ Petitions.
40. It is true, as laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court cannot go into the validity of the policy decision, but if the policy decision taken by the Government is against the statutory provisions or a violation of the Constitutional provisions, this Court can certainly interfere with the same. As indicated above, the main basis for the policy decision of the State, as claimed b y the respondents, is the Expert Committee Report and its recommendation.
41. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Expert Committee should have been constituted under the Tamil Nadu Ground Water (Development and Management) Act,2003, and the Committee should have sought for assistance from the Central Ground Water Authority, appointed by the Central Government, as ordered by the Supreme Court, and as this has not been done, the Expert Committee, constituted by the State Government, is not valid and, consequently, it has to be held that the recommendation of the said Committee and the acceptance of the same through policy dec ision would amount to violation of the statutory provisions.
42. Refuting the above argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, it is pointed out by the learned Advocate General that though the Tamil Nadu Ground Water (Development and Management) Act,2003, was passed by the Legislature in the year 2003, it would come into force only after issuance of Notification and since the Notification has not been issued, the State Government is not empowered to follow the procedures regarding the constitution of Committee as per the said Act. He would further submit that when a Special Committee, consisting of Experts, has been constituted and a detailed report has been submitted after detailed discussions and deliberations on the basis of inspection and other tests carried out by it, there is no necessity for the State Government to consult the Central Ground Water Authority, appointed by the Central Government, to go into the very same question.
43. The above submission made by the learned Advocate General, countering the said point, raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, in our considered opinion, deserves acceptance.
44. In the absence of existence of the said Act and in the light of the fact that it is not mandatory on the part of the State to consult the Central Ground Water Authority, appointed by the Central Government, especially when it is satisfied with the report of its own officials, it has to be held that the failure to invoke the provisions of the Act and to get the assistance of the Central Ground Water Authority would not disentitle the State Government to form its own Committee, consisting of Experts, and to accept its report, after a detailed consideration. Therefore, it cannot be contended that there is a violation of the statutory provisions, as claimed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
45. However, this Court has to consider one other argument advanced by Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, to the effect that when the policy decision was taken mainly on the basis of the Expert Committee Report and the contents of the Expert Committee Report have been mentioned in the counter affidavit to oppose the petitions, it is the responsibility of the respondents to place the report before the Court and also to furnish a copy to them, so that they could go through and place their submissions before this Court about the correctness or otherwise of the report.
46. Having considered the above argument, this Court had directed the learned Advocate General to place the entire records, including the Expert Committee Report before this Court and to furnish the copies to the counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, the entire file has been produced before this Court. However, the learned Advocate General expressed his difficulty in furnishing the copy of the report to the counsel for the petitioners, since the Government has got every apprehension about the possible misuse and abuse of the said report by vested interests, if furnished.
47. Opposing the stand taken by the Government, claiming privilege over the said document, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the Government cannot claim any privilege and the petitioners are entitled to a copy of the report. In support of her contention, Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, would cite the following decisions :
(i) AIR (37) 1950 EAST PUNJAB 228 (GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL V. H.PEER MOHAMED KHUDA BUX AND ORS.);
(ii) AIR (38) 1951 BOMBAY 72 (LADY DINBAI BIN SHAH PETIT V. THE DOMINION OF INDIA);
(iii) AIR 1964 SUPREME COURT 1658 (AMAR CHAND BUTAIL V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.) and
(iv) AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 865 (STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH V. RAJ NARAIN).
48. The gist of those decisions is as follows :
"In terms of Section 123 of the Evidence Act, privilege applies only to unpublished records relating to any affairs of State. Under Sections 123 and 162 of the Act, a Court cannot hold an enquiry into the possible injury to public interest which may result from the disclosure of the document in question. That is a matter for the authority concerned to decide; but the Court is competent to hold a preliminary enquiry and determine the validity of the objections to its production and that necessarily involves an enquiry into the question as to whether the evidence relates to an affair of State under Section 123 or not. It is that injury to public interest is the reason for the exclusion from disclosure of documents, whose contents if disclosed would injure public and national interest. Public interest which demands that evidence be withheld is to be weighed against the public interest in the administration of justice that courts should have the fullest possible access to all relevant materials."
49. On the basis of the above, Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel; Mr.T.Mohan and Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would request this Court to direct the Advocate General to furnish a copy of the Report.
50. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, on the strength of 1993 (4) SCC 119 (R.K.JAIN V. UNION OF INDIA), would submit that the Technical Report contains several technical details and the methodology of pumping water from Kollidam River onwards is being safeguarded from revealed to everyone, taking care of public interest, and since certain vested groups are trying to find fault and prevent the Project for various reasons, the Government has got every apprehension about the possible misuse and abuse of the said report, which, if furnished, may injure the public interest.
51. In this context, the relevant observation of the Supreme Court is quite relevant, which is as follows :
"Section 123 of the Evidence Act gives right to the Government, in other words, to the Minister or in his absence head of the department, to claim privilege, in other words immunity from disclosure of the unpublished official State documents in public interest.... This Court in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975 (4) SCC 428), held that an objection claiming immunity should be raised by an affidavit affirmed by the head of the department..... They must state with precision the grounds or reasons in support of the public interest immunity. It is now settled law that the initial claim for public interest immunity to produce unpublished official records for short "State documents" should be made through an affidavit generally by the Minister concerned, in his absence by the Secretary of the department or head of the department..... The affidavit should indicate that the documents in question have been carefully read and considered and the deponent has been satisfied, supported by reasons or grounds valid and germane, as to why it is apprehended that public interest would be injured by disclosure of the document summoned or called for.....If the court is satisfied from the affidavit and the reasons assigned for withholding production or disclosure, the court may pass an appropriate order in that behalf."
A perusal of the entire decision would indicate that the Court could allow such privilege, if it finds that the document relating to affairs of the State and its disclosure would be injurious to public interest.
52. In the light of the above observation, let us see the affidavit filed by the Secretary to Government, one of the respondents, claiming privilege. Para 6 of the counter filed by the Secretary to Government reads as follows :
"The Technical Report contains several technical details, vantage points and positions right from the headwork level, pumping stations, running pipelines, depth and location of the running pipes, down to the end point. All these have been stated in detail. The methodology of pumping water from Kollidam onwards has to be safeguarded from being revealed to everyone taking care of public interest. The Government necessarily has to take enormous care in protecting the welfare of the public. Already by wasteful litigation several prestigious and prime projects of the State were forced to be shelved by vested interests. The people of Chennai city are reeling under severe water shortage. They require good potable water for their survival. The interest of one and all has been taken care of by the popular Government. Certain vested groups are trying to find fault and prevent the project for various reasons which are totally alien to the level issues involved. The Government has got every apprehension about the possible misuse and abuse of the said Report, which if furnished, may not be in the public interest."
53. The above paragraph would indicate that the Government feels apprehensive that the report may be abused and misused by vested groups, if it is furnished, and the details about the vantage points and positions right from the headwork level, pumping stations, running pipelines, depth and location of the running pipes, down to the end point and the details of methodology of pumping water from Kollidam are known to the vested interests, they may try to indulge in some activities to cause damage to the Project or do something for delaying the Project.
54. When such an apprehension is being felt by the Secretary to Government through the affidavit, in the absence of any material to show that the said apprehension is misconceived, we have no reason to hold that the same is not genuine. Further, on a perusal of the Expert Committee Report, which has been placed before this Court in a sealed cover along with the Annexure containing some secret details, we are of the view that it is not proper for us to compel the Government to furnish a copy of the Expert Committee Report, which contains the minute details of the various features regarding the Project. However, it is noticed that the main contents of the report have already been given in the counter affidavit. Besides, it would be appropriate for this Court to quote some more particulars, which are contained in the Expert Committee Report in a nutshell, by omitting some details, which, according to the Government, are secret.
55. Let us now quote the gist of the Report of the Expert Committee, containing the chronological events, leading to the policy decision taken by the State Government :
(i) On 20.11.2003, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu held a meeting with officials on Chennai City Water Supply. After discussions, the Chief Minister instructed to explore the possibility of drawing water from river Kollidam, in view of the acute water scarcity, faced by Chennai City .
(ii) On 13.12.2003, as a follow-up action, the Secretary to Government, MA&WS Department, held a meeting with the officials of Metro Water, PWD (WRO) and PWD/Groundwater Wing at Lower Annicut. During the meeting, the Secretary to Government, MA&WS Department, made a review for exploring the possibility of drawing water from Kollidam riverbed. After discussion, preliminary data was collected and it was found that there is a possibility of drawing water from river Kollidam, to an extent of about 150 MLD.
(iii) On 24.12.2003, the Government, in MA&WS Department, constituted a joint study team and the same was requested to submit its feasibility report to the Government within a period of three weeks, by Lr.(D) No.309, MA&WS Department. The study team comprises (1) Chief Engineer (SG&SWRDC) PWD, Chennai, Chairman; (2) Chief Engineer, WRO, Chennai Region, Chennai, Member; (3) Engineering Director, TWAD Board, Chennai, Member; and (4) Chief Engineer (CWSAP) CMWSSB, Chennai, Member.
(iv) The study team selected the study area, which is the Kollidam riverbed located East of Tirumanur Bridge up to Adanur near 74 milestone along the river to an extent of 35 miles. It was decided to concentrate investigation four stretches within the above length.
(v) To assess the availability of sub-surface water in the Kollidam riverbed, Geological mapping and Sand coring field studies are being carried out. The sand coring indicates that there is appreciable depth of sand in certain locations and there is more clayey material in certain other areas.
(vi) The total inference from the study is that during non-flow period, i.e., March to June, there is a probability that at lest 90 to 100 mm of rainfall will occur, which acts as a major recharge source during dry summer months.
The discharge details in the river Kollidam from Grand Annicut are collected for the years from 1990 to 2003. Maximum discharge of 5,02,675 cusecs is noted for the year 1994-1995 and a minimum of 39,612 cusecs during 2002-2003.
(vii) From the available flow data, it is found out, that in the stretch from Grand Annicut to Lower Annicut, the aquifer is always in saturated condition at least for 8 months i.e., from August to March.
(viii) For 7 to 8 months, surface water available is 4000 cusecs at Lower Annicut. Normal irrigation drawl is around 3000 cusecs (given for irrigation) for entire ayacut. The surplus water will be utilized for recharging the aquifer in which all the six collector wells are going to be located. Only based on this recharge principle, the sustainability of water to Chennai Metro can be ensured continuously.
(ix) Total potential of both ground and surface water in the river Kollidam has been worked out to be 2360 MLD. At present, TWAD Board is extracting a quantity of 200 MLD of ground water for various CWSS Projects. CMWSSB has now proposed to extract a quantity of 150 MLD of ground water for Chennai Water Supply Scheme. These two works out to a total of 350 MLD of ground water from the riverbed, which is hardly 14.8% of the total potential available. The need of the CMWSSB, namely, 150 MLD of water is about 6.5% of the total potential of both ground and surface water. Hence, the said extraction may not affect the present and future requirements of TWAD and Irrigation systems in the surrounding areas of Kollidam river.
(x) It is recommended that the distance between two collector wells may be fixed at 1000 mts.
(xi) The Committee made a detailed plan of action for the investigation works under the present project. The works were reviewed at regular intervals of time and the major events leading to the finalisation of project are given in chronological order :
SL.No. DATE ACTIVITIES 1 2/1/2004 3/1/2004 Meeting of Members' Representatives at Lower Anicut.2
01/07/2004 Joint Study Team Committee Meeting at Chennai.3
01/12/2004 Field Visit to Lower Anicut by the Committee.4
13/1/2004 Review Meeting by the Committee Members at Thanjavur.5
03/02/2004 Review Meeting by the Committee Members at Chennai.6
03/09/2004 Review and field visit to Lower Anicut by the Committee Members.
(xii) Therefore, based on the above study, the Study Team recommends construction of six collector wells of 6 mts. dia with two tier radials in the following locations, with expected yield :
SL.No. Location Expected Yield 1 Semmangudi 25 MLD 2 East of Anakudi 22 MLD 3 Keeleramanallur 27 MLD 4 East of Keeleramanallur 27 MLD 5 Vazhkkai 27 MLD 6 Kaverkoodam 22 MLD TOTAL 150 MLD
(xiii) The final recommendations are as under :
(1) Spacing between any two collector wells to be adopted is not less than 1000 meters.
(2) The above six wells have been selected within the stretch of 28 miles between Semmangudi and Lower Anicut.
(3) Each collector well at Keelaramanallur, East of Keelaramanallur and Vazhkkai will yield 27 MLD. Well at Semmangudi will yield 25 MLD and the wells at East of Anakudi and Kaverkoodam will yield 22 MLD each.
(4) This observation was made from 01.01.2004 to 04.04.2004, when there is no flow in the river. This could be taken as a minimum drawl from the above six locations.
(5) It is suggested that the system can be designed for all the above wells to a capacity of 150 MLD."
56. A careful perusal of the report and the recommendations, reflecting the comprehensive study of the Expert Committee, would indicate the following special features :
(1) After deliberations with the officials concerned under the supervision of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the Government appointed a Special Study Team, for the purpose of exploring the possibility of drawing water from Kollidam river, to bring it to Chennai. On 24.12.2003, four officers, namely, (1) Chief Engineer (SG&SWRDC) PWD, Chennai, (2) Chief Engineer, WRO, Chennai Region, Chennai; (3) Engineering Director, TWAD Board, Chennai; and (4) Chief Engineer (CWSAP) CMWSSB, Chennai, were nominated as Members of the Study Team;
thereafter, a detailed field investigation was conducted and, after discussions with the Experts, they decided for construction of six collector wells between mileage 39/3 and 59/0 and recommended for drawal of 150 MLD of water.
(2) The Experts estimated the total potential of both ground and surface water in the river Kollidam at 2360 MLD. CMWSS Board has now proposed to extract the quantity of 150 MLD of water, which is 6.5% of the total potential.
(3) For 7 to 8 months, surface water available is 4000 Cusecs at Lower Annicut. Normal irrigation drawl is around 3000 Cusecs (given for irrigation) for entire ayacut. The surplus water will be utilized for recharging the aquifer in which all the six collector wells are going to be located.
(4) The distance between two collector wells will be fixed at 1000 mts.
(5) Water will be drawn from the sub-surface of Kollidam river under the proposed project through six collector wells and pumped the same to Chennai City through the New Veeranam pipeline. This Scheme will be operated only during the period when there is no water available in Veeranam Lake. This proposal is only for supplementing the sources of New Veeranam Project, already commissioned, whenever Chennai City faces severe drought.
57. Only on the basis of the above factors, it is noticed, that the Government, after due deliberations with the Study Team and other officials, decided to accept the Scheme and take the policy decision, to pump out sub-surface water through collector wells.
58. On going through the entire report, we are unable to observe, that the policy decision was taken by the State Government in a hasty manner. On the other hand, the Study Team, with the Chiefs of various Departments, was constituted in the year 2003; it has inspected the spot on several occasions from 02.01.2004 to 09.03.2004 and, thereafter, it has submitted its report to the Government. The details given in the report, as referred to above, also would indicate that the Study Team took sincere efforts to find out the possibility of drawing water from Kollidam river and, accordingly, after collecting all the required data and conducting tests in the areas concerned, explored the possibility and gave a detailed opinion, with reference to the technical feasibility, on the possibility of drawing sub-surface water. This report would indicate that the drawal of 150 MLD of sub-surface water in the Kollidam River from the protected collector wells will not affect the other schemes already formulated and also will not, in any way, affect the water needs of the public in and around the Kollidam River. As indicated above, we cannot sit over the Experts' opinion, to find out some lacunae in the Expert Committee Report.
59. In this context, it is relevant to extract the observation, made by the Supreme Court in BALCO EMPLOYEES' UNION V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2002 (2) SCC 333), which reads as follows :
"The Courts should be very circumspect in conducting any enquiry or investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgment of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the Court is satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself."
60. In the light of the above observation made by the Supreme Court, we are to conclude that there is no material in the report, to indicate that there is any illegality in the decision taken by the Experts.
61. We have to consider another factual situation, which was brought to the notice of this Court, at the time of arguments. Subsequent to the policy decision taken by the Government, as per the direction of the Chief Minister, four Ministers and Deputy Speaker of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and the officials from the Metrowater Board, TWAD Board, PWD and the District Offcials, led by the District Collector of Perambalur, visited the villages on 24th and 25th of December,20 04, and explained to the villagers that the Government has approved the Scheme only after conducting a detailed investigation and after ascertaining that the interests of the farmers will not be affected in any way. They further explained that the ground water will not be affected on the implementation of the Scheme. Views of the farmers were solicited during the visit and their representatives were heard. During the discussions with the farmers, the farmers placed some suggestions for consideration of the Government and those suggestions were placed before the Chief Minister by the Ministers and Officials and, ultimately, the Chief Minister accepted those suggestions and ordered the officials to take up the follow-up action on those suggestions. Those suggestions are as under :
"(i) Construction of three check dams across the Kollidam river between Grand Annicut to Lower Annicut at mileages 42 (near Elakurichi), 54/4 (near Arankottai) and 60 (near Vazhakurichi) by Public Works Department at an estimated cost of Rs.25.00 crore each with total cost of Rs.75.00 crore.
Public Works Department will take up this work and complete it as a fast track project. On implementation, the impounded water in the check dams is expected to protect the ground water and also make available an increased quantity of water for agricultural purpose.
(ii) Now, in Cauvery Delta ara, electricity connections for agriculture purpose are being given on priority basis. Since the expenditure will be less by drawing water using electric motors, the same priority will be extended to the farmers of T.Pazhur and Thirumanur Panchayat Unions of Perambalur District, which also get Cauvery Delta water. Accordingly, applications registered till 31.12.2004 and waiting for connection numbering 4986 will be taken up for processing immediately in the same way as the farmers in Papanasam - Thiruvaiyaru area.
(iii) If the sand depth is large in the riverbed, more quantity of water can be stored. Since sand quarrying is being done in this area, there is a lurking fear among farmers that the storage of water in this area will be reduced. To clear this fear of the farmers, it has been decided to stop the sand quarrying in between Grand Annicut and Lower Annicut in Kollidam river."
62. The above action of the Government would clearly show that before implementing the policy, the Government took steps to meet the people and clear their doubts about the Scheme and allay their apprehensions, explaining them that their anxieties are baseless. They also assured that the welfare of the farmers will not be compromised, while executing the Scheme. Having not been satisfied with that, the petitioners have approached this Court with these Writ Petitions.
63. As stated above, though we entertain the Public Interest Litigations filed by the petitioners on behalf of agriculturists in the four districts, we are unable to hold that the implementation of the New Veeranam Extension Project, on the basis of the policy decision of the State Government, is wrong, as there is nothing to indicate that the Scheme would suffer from any illegality for want of bona fide or the same is against the statutory or Constitu tional provisions.
64. At this stage, we are to place on record one sad feature with heavy heart. The matter was argued at length by the counsel for the parties. It was adjourned to several dates. This Court patiently heard the learned counsel for the parties and also the learned Advocate General and the Additional Advocate General. Admittedly, hearing went on for several days. During this period, this Court received a flood of letters, numbering about 1000, addressing the names of the Judges, requesting this Court to pass suitable orders, to stop the said implementation of the New Veeranam Extension Project at any cost. As a matter of fact, it is sad to note that some of the agriculturists, in their letters, would intimate this Court, that if water from Kollidam river is allowed to be drawn under the Scheme by the order of this Court, they would end their lives. This is quite unfortunate. In fact, as soon as we received the letters in plenty, we asked Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, to advise the villagers not to send the letters in future. She subsequently intimated to this Court that she has given suitable instructions to the villagers, not to send any more letters to the Court. Despite the same, the flood of letters, addressing the Judges of this Court, has not stopped. Everyday, i.e., till the date of pronouncement of the order, we have been receiving letters after letters. In some letters, some of the villagers have put their signatures with blood.
65. We are shocked to see the mental attitude of the villagers in and around the Kollidam River, by way of sending letters to this Court, intimating that they are not willing to permit their water to be taken to Chennai City. We are not here to advise the villagers to be magnanimous by giving drinking water to the Chennai citizens. We are also not here to remind the villagers that when other States are not magnanimous in supplying water in spite of Tribunal's orders, at least one part of Tamil Nadu must be charitable towards its other part. It is true, charity begins at home. But, at the same time, the people must be aware that the Government has taken sincere steps to draw only sub-surface water, that too in summer season, without affecting the welfare of the people in and around Kollidam river. On a perusal of those letters, one thing is clear. The Ministers, Officials and District Collectors concerned, though visited the districts on various dates to explain the villagers and remove their doubts, they have not succeeded with the same. The press reports, telegrams and the F.I. R. filed in the Typed Set, as referred to above, would indicate that there is a continuous agitation as against the action of the Government. As stated above, similar sentiments opposing the move of the Government have been expressed in clear terms in the letters written by the villagers to this Court pouring their tears. The reason as to why we are constrained to refer to the outcry of the people in and around Kollidam River is, that our endeavour would be to make the State Government to realise the responsibility to explain the real situation, by bringing to the notice of the people concerned, with reference to the detailed reasons given in the Expert Committee Report, for the implementation of the Scheme and also the circumstances under which the policy decision has been taken by the Government.
66. The people must know that the Courts must be conscious about their duties and their limitations. When the Court does not find any illegality in the policy decision taken by the Government, to which no mala fide can be attributed, this Court cannot be compelled to hold that the said policy decision is wrong and, therefore, the implementation of the New Veeranam Extension Project should be dropped.
67. On the other hand, on going through the counter affidavit and also the submissions made by the learned Advocate General and the Additional Advocate General and also on a perusal of the Expert Committee Report with Annexures and other documents, we do not find any reason to hold that the implementation of the New Veeranam Extension Project, in pursuance of the policy decision taken on the basis of the Expert Committee Report, is illegal.
Therefore, we have no other alternative, except to dismiss these Writ Petitions.
68. Before parting with this case, it may be appropriate to refer to our feelings, regarding the sentiments expressed by the villagers, both through agitations and letters sent to this Court. Though letters addressed to the Judges, seeking for favourable orders, while matters are pending, would not be in good taste and even that may amount to contempt of Court, we do not propose to take action against them, since we are of the view that the people, out of anxiety, expressed their fear of impending danger to their livelihood, due to the Project, to the Court, so that the Court will sympathetically consider their plights. But, the Court cannot decide the issue on the basis of the number of letters received from the villagers or their sentiments expressed therein.
69. The Court has to act in accordance with law. Of course, ends of justice are higher than the ends of law, but, the justice has got to be administered in accordance with law. At the most, we may direct the Government to send the Experts along with the officials, especially the persons who have got the gift of the gap, to address meetings in various areas of the four districts and to explain them, regarding the real import of the Scheme and assure them that the Scheme would not affect their livelihood, agricultural operations and water needs in any way. Accordingly, the Government is directed to send Special Delegates and Officials t o visit the people and explain to them in arranged meetings and make sincere efforts to allay their apprehensions.
70. To sum up :
(1) The locus standi of the petitioners, who filed these Public Interest Litigations, cannot be questioned, as, in our opinion, their action, in approaching this Court through these Public Interest Litigations, is bona fide.
(2) The Public Policy Decision taken by the State Government, on the basis of the Expert Committee Report and recommendations, cannot be found fault with, as, in our view, the same would not suffer from lack of bona fide or due to the violations of Statutory or Constitutional provisions.
71. With the above observations, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P.Nos.2029 and 5500 of 2005 and 38171 and 38172 of 2004 are also dismissed.
Index : Yes Internet : Yes dixit To
1.The Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Managing Director, Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chennai - 600 002.