RAJINI JAYADEV Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue of a memo by the 2nd respondent panchayath asking the petitioner to stop the digging of a tube well is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is a native of Pallikkal in Alappuzha District, along with her husband, brother -in -law and sister -in -law, is having 4.5 ares of land comprised in different survey numbers of Bharanikkavu Village, which is lying as a single plot. The petitioner started a High Tech Farming with drip irrigation. She has adopted High Tech Farming Technology to avoid wastage of water sources. In order to install a drip irrigation system and to dig a tube well for the water sources, the petitioner approached the 7th respondent with an application for certificate for erection of tube well/bore well. The 7th respondent issued a certificate and along with that, the petitioner submitted a representation before the 6th respondent Department along with requisite fee. After investigation, the 6th respondent issued a letter with estimate for construction of 150MM Dia Tube well asking the petitioner to remit a sum of 1,93,225/ - towards cost of construction of the tube well and to execute an agreement in stamp paper. This was duly complied with. However, when the petitioner started the work, some local people made a complaint before the 2nd respondent, who verbally asked the petitioner to stop the digging. She submitted a representation before the 2nd respondent on 15.02.2014 with all the permits and sanctions. The 2nd respondent, then, issued a stop memo directing the petitioner to stop digging of well under the threat of shortage of water in the area. The petitioner alleges that the panchayath has no authority to do so. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the stop memo and seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to withdraw the same unconditionally.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit, wherein they have contended that it is the State Ground Water Authority constituted under the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002, who is competent to grant sanction. They would further contend that the panchayath is already reeling under the scarcity of drinking water and the people are franticly searching for source of drinking water. It is further contended that the panchayath has every authority under Rule 91 of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules to refuse sanction.