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.
4/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024
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 5/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 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. 6/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024
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 7/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 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 8/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 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. 9/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024
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 10/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 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 11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 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.
12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024
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.
13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024
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 14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 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 15/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 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 16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 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 17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 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 18/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 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 19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 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 20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 '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 21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 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, 22/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 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, 23/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 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.
24/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm ) W.A.No.1791 of 2024 AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN W.A.No.1791 of 2024 16.09.2025 25/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )