ELANGBAM AMUJAO SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. E.Premjit Sinhg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur for the State respondents.

(2.) The prayers in this PIL are as follows:-

(3.) This PIL is based on a report in the press stating that while inaugurating Waithoupat Water supply scheme, no time frame has been indicated for implementing the water supply scheme under the Jal Jeevan Mission of the Jal Shakti Ministry. The petitioner relies upon a media news to state that a huge amount has been given in grant-in-aid with 90% Central share and 10% State share to improve the drinking water supply schemes in the State of Manipur. The petitioner also relies upon one project inaugurated by the Chief Minister of Manipur, namely, Thoubal Waithoupat water supply scheme. The news report on the inauguration of Waithoupat Water supply scheme speaks about implementing the Jal Jeevan Mission of the Jal Shakti Ministry by the State Government based on a detailed project report for about Rs.2600 crores. It is stated that New Development Bank approved and sanctioned the amount for executing the Jal Jeevan Mission schemes. While it is so, the petitioner states that the implementation of the Jal Jeevan Mission would not be effective because no specific timeline has been given for completion of the projects. Secondly, there are vacancies in the post of Chief Engineer, Superintendent Engineer and Engineers at various levels and unless and until experienced and competent engineers are appointed at the grassroots level, the execution of this Jal Jeevan Mission will be a farce. On this premise, a mandamus has been sought for to direct the respondents to implement the water supply projects under the Jal Jeevan Mission of the Jal Shakti Ministry in a fixed time frame.4 The Hon 'ble Supreme Court in several cases particularly in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India; (1984) 3 SCC 161, Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.; 1996 (2) SCC 549, Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar, ( 1991) 1 SCC 598 and A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V.Nayudu, 2001 (2) SCC 62 has held that right to good drinking water is a fundamental right. The Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board II (supra) held at para Nos. 3 and 4 as below:-