AMAR SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners who are residents of village Burail and own agricultural land there, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the respondents in not allowing them to draw sullage water (untreated sewage) from the sewers of Chandigarh Administration.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the own agricultural land in village Burail in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and have been irrigating their lands by lifting sullage water through pump sets from the sewers of the respondent-Administration on payment of certain charges. It is claimed by them that the respondents have been supplying them sullage water for the last three decades though the respondents have admitted that it was being supplied from the year 1979-80 onwards. This water was being supplied to the petitioners and other owners of agricultural land in the Union Territory of Chandigarh at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per acre for every crop which was enhanced to Rs. 50.00 and at present the rate was Rs. 100.00 per acre for each crop. According to the petitioners, the supply of sullage water was suddenly stopped on 16/07/1992 when the officials of the Chandigarh Administration closed down the manholes and the petitioners were told not to use their pump sets to lift sullage water and that if they did so, criminal proceedings would be initiated against them. The land of the petitioners is under acquisition and they have challenged the acquisition proceedings in this Court by filing civil writ petition number 2086 of 1992 which is pending and their case is that the respondent-Administration has deliberately stopped the supply of sullage water to them because they have challenged the acquisition proceedings in this Court. The respondents, on the other hand, have pleaded that sullage water i.e. untreated sullage, was allowed to be drawn by the petitioners and other farmers in the Union Territory through their own pumping sets upto 30/06/1992 and that thereafter the use of such water has been stopped throughout the Union Territory as the Chandigarh Pollution Control Committee, Department of Environment, U. T., Chandigarh has served a final notice on the Chief Engineer, Public Health, Union Territory, Chandigarh (respondent No. 3) requiring him to stop the use of sullage water for irrigation purposes in the Union Territory as the same was resulting in pollution and contamination. It may be mentioned that sullage water that was being supplied to the farmers in the Union Territory though said to be somewhat treated, was not bacteria free and was emitting foul smell. According to the respondents, the grant of further permission to use sullage water would be in violation of Ss. 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the concerned officers would render themselves liable to prosecution under the provisions of the said Act. It is further stated on behalf of the respondents that untreated sullage water for irrigation by drawing the same through pump sets from city sewers by the petitioners and other farmers can also not be permitted due to the reason that a sewage treatment plant has been set up by the Chandigarh Administration and this plant requires the entire untreated sullage for purposes of treatment so that the same can be supplied back to the city drinking and other purposes. Moreover, the lands of the petitioners and some others are close to the residential area on the periphery of Chandigarh adjoining the town of Mohali and the residents of that area have been complaining of the foul smell emitted by sullage water. Further, the case of the respondents is that supply of sullage water has been stopped not only to the petitioners but to all the farmers and land owners in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and it is wrong on the part of the petitioners to aver that they alone have been singled out.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I find that the petition has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. The respondent-Administration has been supplying sullage water to the petitioners and other farmers for irrigation purposes against charges as fixed by the department from time to time. There, thus, came into being a contract - pure and simple between the Chandigarh Administration on the one hand and the farmers including the petitioners on the other in regard to the supply of sullage water. Non-supply of sullage water can, at the most, be described as violation of a contractual obligation on the part of the Administration and it is not the case of the petitioners that sullage water was being supplied to them under any statutory contract. When there comes into being a contract between the State and a citizen whether in writing or otherwise but is not under any statute, the relations between the parties are not governed by any constitutional provisions but by the contract itself which alone determines the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. In this sphere, the parties can only claim rights conferred upon them by the contract and for any alleged violation of such a contract, no writ or order can be issued under Art. 226 of the Constitution so as to compel the authority to remedy a breach of such a contract. Any party feeling aggrieved by the alleged breach may pursue any remedy that may be available to it under the ordinary law.