SHAJIMON JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kerala is widely known all over the world as a land of backwaters. In fact, the backwaters are important tourist attraction in Kerala. Alappuzha, one of the districts of Kerala, is also rich in that sense, since the district has backwaters in abundance. However, Alappuzha is a place which makes the old saying "water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink", true to its real sense. In spite of water in such abundance all over the district, the inhabitants of Alappuzha do not get clean drinking water, despite the water supply system in existence operated by the Kerala Water Authority. The water which comes through the taps of the Kerala Water Authority at Alappuzha is so rich in all kinds of organic and inorganic impurities that no person who values his health would dare to drink the same. But for the paucity of adequate potable drinking water, we feel that the influx of tourists to Alappuzha would have been much greater than what is presently obtaining. This situation has been continuing for several decades. In spite of the fact that from the very inception of the Kerala State in 1956, very eminent political leaders representing Alappuzha had become ministers of the State, nobody could or seriously cared to find out a permanent solution for this drinking water problem of the people of Alappuzha. The same continues unabated even now. The people of Alappuzha go on suffering this misery while they go on paying for the dirty water which comes through the water supply system given by the Kerala Water Authority. It is in the above backdrop that two residents of Alappuzha have approached this Court with this Writ Petition with very serious allegations against the Government and the Kerala Water. Authority not only regarding the apathy of the Government and the Water Authority towards their drinking water problem, but also complaining of corruption in the matter of putting into execution a project for supply of clean drinking water to the people of Alappuzha, which was envisaged as early as in the year 2000.

(2.) Kerala Water Authority was constituted by the Government of Kerala under Section 3 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerages Act, 1986 as an autonomous body under the direct control and supervision of the Government for the development and regulation of water supply and waste water collection and disposal in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith. A scheme known as "Alappuzha Water Supply Scheme" was envisaged by the Kerala Water Authority to cater to the drinking water needs of the people of the entire Alappuzha Municipality and the neighbouring eight Panchayat areas. Although the scheme was envisaged for immediate implementation, it is a sad fact that nothing concrete has happened yet from the side of the Water Authority and the Government who are to implement the project. It is stated that the Kerala Water Authority had conducted detailed scientific studies for two years in 2001 and 2002 and originally selected an intake water well site or collection center for the project at Kuriath kadavu in the banks of Pamba river. Later on, that site was abandoned as unworkable. Thereafter, a site at a place called 'Veeyapuram' was selected, after prolonged study and investigation. The said place is stated to be a river bed having water in abundance as three major rivers of Kerala, namely, Pamba river, Manimala river and Achankovil river converges at Veeyapuram. Originally, the scheme was envisaged as a collection center at Veeyapuram with an efficient water distribution system using M.S. Steel pipes which are available for supply from the Steel Authority of India which is a Central Government concern and in fact a notification inviting the tenders for the project was issued as Ext. P4. The petitioners allege that at this point of time, there was a conspiracy among the powers that be with the officers of the Water Authority, politicians and suppliers of pipes which led to a change in the scheme of things by which a decision was taken to substitute M.S. steel pipes with GRP pipes which, according to the petitioners, is below standard in terms of quality, which would, in future, cause recurring problems to the water supply system unlike M.S steel pipes. They would also submit that these GRP pipes are supplied by persons outside the State and for replacement of such pipes, in case of emergency repairs, the Water Authority would have to wait until these persons supply the GRP pipes from outside the State whereas if M.S. steel pipes are used, the dependable Steel Authority of India would be able to supply the same within no time as they have sufficient outlets in the State of Kerala. In order to execute this conspiracy into action, the Water Authority suddenly found it necessary to shift the collection center from Veeyapuram to a place called 'Pannai kadavu' which is very near to the earlier abandoned collection center, namely, 'Kuriath kadavu'. It was also decided to use GRP pipes instead of M.S. steel pipes and with this intention, issued a fresh tender notification dated 15.11.2002, which is Ext. P5. According to the petitioners, the people of Alappuzha was totally against these manoeuvres of the Water Authority. Suits and petitions followed. In view of this position, 2nd and 3rd respondents found that it would not be a smooth going affair for their sinister plan and to save their face, they are stated to have adopted a method to delay and scuttle the implementation of the project and on the pretext of the existence of the civil suits, they are taking a benign attitude in the matter of implementation of the project itself. They have also allegedly brought in a new reason by obtaining a report that on 10 days, salinity was found in the water at Veeyapurpm site. Petitioners have given a lot of data in the Writ Petition as to why the action subsequent to Ext. P4 tender notification issued was totally against the interest of the State and the people of Alappuzha as is evidenced by the fact that the Writ Petition runs into 20 pages and they have also produced 18 Exhibits comprised of about 80 pages. On the above allegations, the petitioners have approached this Court through this Public Interest Litigation seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 who are the Kerala Water Authority and the Superintending Engineer of Kerala Water Authority, PH Circle, Kottayam. We are surprised to find that in spite of the very serious allegations raised by the petitioners in the Writ Petition, which certainly amount, if not to allegations of corruption, to allegations of improper motive against the officers of the Kerala Water Authority as also others in the Government connected with that project, in the counter affidavit, there is no specific denial of these allegations. While admitting that the Investigation Planning and Design Wing of the Kerala Water Authority has prepared the project report of the Water Supply Scheme for Alappuzha and 8 adjoining panchayats with an estimate of Rs. 7783 lakhs during the year 2001, respondents 2 and 3, put the blame on the Government stating that it is because the Government refused to give guarantee for the HUDCO loan citing financial constraints, that the project did not take off. They would submit that the Kerala Water Authority put forward this scheme for financial assistance from HUDCO to the Government and administrative, sanction and technical sanction in accordance with the norms of HUDCO were duly issued. HUDCO considered the proposal for loan assistance, but insisted on Government guarantee for sanctioning the loan. Since the Government guarantee was not sanctioned, the HUDCO also did not sanction loan for the scheme. Although the tenders which were processed and placed before the Board of the Water Authority on 30/03/2004, the Board vide Ext. R2 resolution No. 256 dated 30/03/2004, decided to cancel the tenders and rearrange the works only after getting confirmation of funds for the scheme. During the review meeting held by the Minister of Water Resources at Alappuzha, it was decided to prepare a revised proposal for the scheme. According to respondents 2 and 3, as per the said resolution, Exts. P4 and P5 are not maintainable. Although they tried to justify their selection of the new source of intake of water, absolutely no technical data have been supplied in the counter affidavit in spite of the specific allegations raised by the petitioners in the Writ Petition, even though there is a vague explanation that downstream, river Pamba is subject to saline intrusion and the extent is increasing progressively and therefore upstream of river Pamba was considered as the ideal source of intake of water. They did not even refer to Veeyapuram or the reasons for rejecting Veeyapuram as the source of intake of water for distribution. We are disturbed to see that in respect of the very serious allegations raised by the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 have taken the matter very lightly and filed a vague counter affidavit which does not even try to controvert the serious allegations of mala fides, if not corruption, against the officers of the Water Authority and the powers-that-be.