Ground Water Vulnerable, Regulations Should Focus On Sustainability And Care For Future Generations: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has reminded regulators that regulations on the usage of groundwater resources must be made focussing on rationality, control, safety, sustainability and care for future generations.Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that groundwater is an essential component of groundwater resources and a special type of mineral wealth and its uncontrolled usage can even affect...
The Kerala High Court has reminded regulators that regulations on the usage of groundwater resources must be made focussing on rationality, control, safety, sustainability and care for future generations.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that groundwater is an essential component of groundwater resources and a special type of mineral wealth and its uncontrolled usage can even affect ecosystems.
“ Being so, ground water is vulnerable and limited, despite its replenishable nature and vast reserves, impelling unexpendable regulations in most parts of the world; especially since uncontrolled exploitation of aquifers by even small water users can affect the ecosystems,” stated the Court.
It further stated that regulations on the usage of groundwater resources should not be dealt casually and as a mere formality.
“This preface is to remind the statutory Regulators that when enforcing the Regulations qua ground water use, their focus ought to be on rationality, control, safety, sustainability and care for future generations,” added the Court.
In the facts of the case, the petitioner had approached the Court challenging certain conditions imposed upon him by the Director of the Ground Water Department in connection with constructing a bore well.
The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier he had obtained a No Objection Certificate from the District Officer for constructing a bore well for extracting groundwater for domestic purposes. It was alleged that the residents association of the area had filed an appeal against the NOC due to which several impossible conditions were imposed on the petitioner. It was argued that permission for extraction of water would be given based on future recommendations of the District Level Evaluation Committee after conducting scientific assessment through pumping test. Further, it was submitted that he did not intend to build any infrastructural projects but only an apartment complex on his property.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had not mentioned the maximum water that would be extracted by the bore well nor had he disclosed his intention of constructing a multi-storied building. Relying upon the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002, it was argued that permission for extraction of water will only given after verification of water availability through pumping tests and based on the recommendations of the District Level Evaluation Committee.
The Court found that the petitioner had not disclosed the nature of the construction that he intended to undertake. It took note of the fact that conditions were imposed upon the petitioner by the Director of the Ground Water Department after a hydrological study of the area based on the misapprehension that he was building an infrastructural project.
The Court added that NOC could not have been granted for constructing a bore well when he had not disclosed the purposes for which it will be used and what kind of construction it is expected to service.
“This is crucially germane and relevant because, it is not merely the availability of water in the area which is relevant, but also the manner in which the extracted groundwater will be put to use; and on such, will depend upon the nature and the tenor of the conditions to be imposed,” stated the Court.
It found that the conditions were imposed on the misapprehension that the petitioner was constructing an infrastructural project when he intended to construct only a multi-storied apartment complex.
The Court has thus quashed the order issued by the Director of Ground Water Department and has also permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh application disclosing all the relevant details which shall be considered based on the statutory prescriptions and the provisions of the applicable Rules.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates Jacob Sebastian, K V Winston, Anu Jacob
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates C D Dileep, Sunil Nair Palakkat, K Aboobacker Sidheeque, K N Abhilash, Government Pleader P S Appu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
Case title: Sreeranj v State of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) NO. 28725 OF 2021