ORDER
1. The prayer of the writ petitioner is to issue a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from implementing the scheme of taking water from the Sambai Uthu in karaikudi to Tirupattur.
2. The petitioned in this writ petition by name, Pazha Karuppiah, is the General Secretary of the Drinking Water Protection
Committee of Karaikudi. The petitioner in his affidavit in support of the writ petition states that the petitioner Committee was constituted by the people of Karaikudi Town for the protection and prevention of dirversion of the drinking water from the Sambai Uthu (Spring) in Karaikudi to the Tirupattur Town. It is further stated that the drinking water needs at the Karaikudi Town is being met from the Sambai Uthu (Spring) which is almost 3,000 years old. The Sambai Uthu which is located along a major weak zone (fault) running between Cuddalore to the North East and Sathankulam in the South West is the main source of water for the Karaikudi Town from time immemorial. In 1987, the first respondent formulated a scheme for taking water from the Sambai Uthu in Karaikudi to the Tirupattur Town. The people of Karaikudi on coming to know about the proposed scheme through paper reports raised objections. The elected municipality immediately met and by an unanimous resolution dated 14-7-1987 resolved that the proposed scheme should be dropped and that water from Sambai Uthu in Karaikudi should not be taken or diverted to Tirupattur, since the people of Karaikudi have been suffering from water shortage. In pursuance of the resolution of the Karaikudi Municipality, the first respondent dropped the scheme. The petitioner further states that after a lapse of seven years, the first respondent taking advantage of the absence of the popularly elected municipality is trying to implement the scheme, contrary to the wishes of the people of Karaikudi and the respondents are in a hurry to implement the project without the consent of the people of Karaikudi. It is further stated that as per the Karaikudi Water Supply Scheme, in 1975, it was estimated that the minimum requirement of water was 70 litres per person, per day. Even after the implementation of the aforesaid water supply scheme for Karaikudi, the inhabitants of Karaikudi are getting only 15 litres of water per person per day. There is acute shortage of water in certain areas of Karaikudi. In 1995 the estimated requirement of water for the present population of Karaikudi is 56.59 lakh litres. According to this estimate, the flow of
water from 11 bore wells in the Sambai Uthu would have to be 7,460 litres per minute. Accordingly, representations were made to the Government to drop the Scheme for the supply of water from Karaikudi to Thi’ru-pattur. The entire people of Karaikudi began a peaceful agitation in the form of a hartal on 8-11-1994 and demonstrated a human chain on 14-11-1994. The issue regarding the implementation of the scheme was raised in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. However, the first respondent without appreciating the grievances of the people, announced a grant of Rs. 60 lakhs for the purposes of enhancing the supply of water from the Sambai Uthu to the Karaikudi Municipality. It is further stated that even if the scheme relating to Karaikudi is implemented, the needs of the water supply of Karaikudi will not be met. It is further stated that Tirupattur is located 20 kilometres away from Karaikudi. The first respondent formulated the scheme for supply of water from Karaikudi to Tirupattur from the Sambai Uthu, without even conducting a study on the feasibility and accepiability of the scheme. It also does not taken into consideration the needs and requirements of the people of Karaikudi. In this connection, the petitioner has enclosed an article by Dr. S. M. Ramasamy, Director Centre for Remote Sensing of Bharathidasan University, Trichy, published on 26-4-1995 in ‘The Hindu’, under the caption, ‘Viable Solution to Water Problem’. As per the said Article, there is enough water to supply to Tirupattur independent of the water from the Sambai Uthu of Karaikudi. It is further alleged that the scheme to supply water from Sambai Uthu in Karaikudi to Tirupattur is being implemented at the instance of Mr. S. Kannappan, Minister (P.W.D. Highways, Electricity) of the Government of Tamil Nadu who has been elected from the Tirupattur constituency. It is further stated that the said scheme is being implemented to the total disregard of the requirements of the people of Karaikudi in order to; satisfy the selfish and egoistic objectives of the said Minister. It is further stated that the first respondent has been taking all possible steps to stifle all forms of protests by the people of Karaikudi. It is
further alleged that the scheme is being implemented to supply water to a banian factory and a mineral water factory in Tirupattur which the petitioner understands is to be started by a Minister of Tamil Nadu. It is further stated that the scheme is being implemented in a great hurry contrary to the wishes of the people of Karaikudi and the resolution dated 14-7-1987. It is further alleged that if the scheme is completed, the Sambai Uthu which is almost 3,000 years old will dry up due to over-exploitation. It is also stated that without conducting a detailed investigation regarding the availability of water in Tirupattur, the respondents 1 and 2 are trying to implement the Tirupattur Water Scheme by tapping the underground water in Sambai Uthu in Karaikudi. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this writ petition, with the relief as prayed for.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government, represented by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Local Administration, wherein it is stated as follows :–
“It is respectfully submitted that even from the year 1978, Karaikudi Municipality was getting water from 9 bore wells from the said Sambaioothu aquifer and after the said sanction of Karaikudi Water Supply Scheme, as per G.O.Ms. No. 84, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19-4-1995, 2 more bore wells have been sunk from the same Sembaioothu aquifer. As per the request made by Thirupathu Town Panchayat, 3 bore wells have been sunk in the year 1990, between 3-5-1990 and 15-5-1990 for which Yield Test was conducted as per reports dated 19-10-1990, 22-10-1990 and 24-10-1990 furnished by Action for Food Production field Unit III, Coimbatore which was recognised by Government of India. Only the financial sanction was made after the present Government came into power in the year 1991 with a view to complete the Water Supply Scheme. Hence, there is no force or truth in the allegations attributed by the writ petitioner that the said Water Supply Scheme is executed afresh by the respondents 1 and 2 at the inducement of the third respondent: Like
sanction of Water Supply Scheme to Karai-kudi, the respondents 1 and 2 sanctioned, similar scheme to Thirupattur Citizens also. It will be pertinent to note that the total quantity of water pumped from Sembaioothu to Karaikudi is of the order of 80.59 lakh litres per day and taking population of Karaikudi which is 73,700, the per capita consumption of water comes to 110 litres approximately per day.
It is respectfully submitted that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to represent the entire population of Karaikudi Municipality and he has filed the above writ petition with ulterior motives making allegations against the respondents without any basis. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed in limini on the ground of laches, since the writ petitioner has not chosen to approach this Hon’ble Court at least in the year 1993 when the Thirupattur Water Supply Scheme was finalised and sanctioned by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 170, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 9-7-1993 which was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 4-8-1993 and the petitioner with a view to make false allegations against the Government has filed the above frivolous writ petition after 2 years from the sanction of Tirupattur Water Supply Scheme. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed as necessary parties are not impleaded such as Tirupathur Town Panchayat or persons representing the citizens of Thirupathur Town and its surrounding locality. The writ petitioner has attempted to move this Hon’ble Court by purporting to file the above writ petition as Public Interest Litigation without making proper and sustainable allegations against the respondents who have followed the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is not a genuine public interest litigant and he is trying to ventilate his grievance for personal gain.
It is submitted that the true purpose and object of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1978 is itself to make regulations and development schemes on
water supply and drainage, throughout the State of Tamil Nadu except the City of Madras. It is submitted that nobody can claim water as his own since water and other natural resources belong to the State which alone is competent to make necessary and proper regulations to provide for the areas which suffer acute shortage of drinking water. In this regard, it is to be noted that the petitioner’s allegation that the people of Karaikudi will be affected without sufficient water is not correct, since the Government have also, with reference to the resolution adopted by Karaikudi Municipality (Resolution No. 511, dated 13-11-1994) sanctioned in G.O.Ms. No. 84, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19-4-1995, Water Supply Improvement Scheme at a cost of Rs. 60 lakhs for the purpose of increasing water supply facilities, as fore thought to satisfy the population that may increase even after 2000 AD. The petitioner has vaguely denied the fact that Tirupattur area is not getting adequate and perennial water facilities, as in the case of Karaikudi region which is getting more rains in one than Thirupathur area, which is mostly dry and filled up with rocks and without even normal water supply. It is a general phenomenon that even in cases of scarcity of water, such scarcity shall be shared by all people equally and it will not be fair on the part of one region to claim the entire water facilities depriving the people of other region solely depending on the water sources lying within the said region or its nearest locality. It is also submitted that it is a common principle that fair and even distribution to all the people is essential in the case of water supply which should be shared by all the people. In the public interest, the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board got a duty to provide drinking water available to the areas which suffer acute shortage of drinking water. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not proved as to how the so-called studies evolved by Dr. S. N. Ramasamy, Director, Centre for Remote Sensing, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli will be more accurate and authenticated when compared to the scientific study and the report submitted by the
competent authorities belonging to the second respondent Board.
It is submitted that on the basis of the report of the 2nd respondent Board, we are submitting a comparative statement which is annexed herewith which will contain the details of Water Supply Scheme, progress of work, amount of estimate and also actual works so far completed till 7-11-1995 by the respondents 1 and 2 for both Karaikudi Municipality as well as for Tirupathur Town Panchayat.
It is further submitted that this respondent has also annexed the authenticated plan which will show the actual pipe lines laid down from Sembaioothu to Thirupathur Town Panchayat till the order of status quo was made by this Hon’ble Court on 7-11-1995. Almost all the works of water supply scheme on, both Karaikudi and Thirupathur have been completed which will certainty satisfy the needs of citizens of Karaikudi and Tirupathur apart from adjoining villages. Only 371 metres distance has to be linked by water pipe lines in Titupathur Scheme. By filing such so-called public litigation like the present one, the petitioner wants to deprive and affect the equally valuable rights of the citizens of Tirupathur Region to get water supply to their area which is actually dry without any perennial supply of water.
Under the above circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merits, not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.”
4. The second respondent adopted the counter filed by the first respondent.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent wherein the third respondent states as follows :–
“I am the third respondent in the above writ petition and also Minister for Electricity in the Government of Tamil Nadu having my office at Fort of St. George, Madras-9 Im am swearing to this counter affidavit from the knowledge derived from the records and also from the knowledge.
I deny all these allegations made in the affidavit of the writ petition and state that they are false fabricated and unreasonable unfair and devoid of merits except those that are specifically admitted herein. I crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to permit me to adopt the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 and also to file the present counter affidavit of mine as supplement to the said counter affidavits filed by the first and second respondent in the interest of justice.
I submit that the petitioner has unnecessarily impleaded me as a party respondent and therefore the writ petilion is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of party.
I submit that the drinking water needs of both Karaikudi Town and Tirupathur Town were correctly considered by the second respondent with their technical reports and no injustice has! been caused, as alleged by the petitioner to the people of Karaikudi. The vague allegations made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that only due to the forthcoming local election to be held shortly, the respondents are in hurry to implement the project are unwarranted and imaginary. It is also equally, unreasonable, unnecessary that since, I happened to be a Member of Legislative Assembly elected from Tirupathur Assembly Constituency and that the scheme to draw water from Sembai Uthu to Tirupathur Town is being implemented at my instance is made with ulterior motives and mala fide intention to drag my name unnecessarily disregarding the technical aspects involved in the water problems. It is incorrect to state that the scheme is being implemented in total disregard of requirements of people of Karaikudi in order to satisfy myselfish and egoistic conjectives. It is also equally false to allege that the scheme is being implemented to supply water to a banian factory and a mineral water factory in Tirupattur which the petitioner understands is to be started by a Minister of Tamil Nadu which vague allegations are bald allegations, unreasonable, unfair, derogatory and unwarranted. It is also incorrect and improper to allege that scheme had been involved in total disregard to procedure laid down by the Tamil Nadu Water
Supply and Drainage Board Act 1971 which must be proved by the petitioner herein instead of making such false allegations.
Regarding the allegations made by the petitioner in paragraph 13 of the affidavit that the scheme is contrary to the Directive Principles of State Policy as laid down in Part IV of the Constitution of India, it is submitted that the State is bound to give protection and other facilities including water facilities etc., to all the citizens of the State irrespective of particular region and hence the Government has proceeded properly in implementing the above scheme in every respect considering the feasibility of water and its availability etc.”
6. W. M. P. No. 27591 of 1995 and W. M. P. No 3796 of 1996 were preferred for impleading the concerned parties in the writ petition. Both the petitions are opposed by the learned Advocate General on the ground that the interests of both the impleading petitioners have been taken care of by the writ petitioner and the Government and there is no necessity to implead the proposed parties. There is force in the submission of the learned Advocate General that the interests of both the impleading parties have been adequately taken care of by the writ petitioner and the State of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent. In view of the above, both the W.M.Ps. are dismissed.
7. Mr. S. Govindswaminathan, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the only source of water supply for the people of Karaikudi is Sombai Oothu from time immemorial. Sombai Oothu is 3,000 years old and the people of Karaikudi are drawing water from the Sombai Oothu. Taking into consideration the population of the Karaikudi the daily supply of water per person to the inhabitants of Karaikudi is only 15 litres and in some places, there is acute water shortage. While so, the first respondent State of Tamil Nadu without preliminary investigation regarding the availability of the ground water from the Sombai. Oothu and without preliminary investigation with regard to the availability of ground water at Tirupattur have started
implementing a water scheme to tap the ground water from Sombai Oothu in Karaikudi to supply water to Tirupattur. Mr. S. Govindswaminathan, the learned senior counsel further submitted that the earlier proposal to tap water from Sombai Oothu and take water to Tirupattur formulated in 1987 was not implemented as the elected Municipality of Karaikudi, passed a unanimous resolution on 14-7-1987 requesting the State Government to drop the said water scheme and the scheme was not implemented. However, the scheme is being implemented in a hurry as the third respondent has been elected from Tirupattur constituency and a Minister incharge of Public Works Department.
8. Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu (first respondent) and the third respondent, contended that the apprehensions of the petitioner are not well-founded. The State Government has taken into consideration the needs of the inhabitants of both Karaikudi and Tirupattur with regard to the adequate supply of water and only after the availability of ground water at Sombai Oothu in Karaikudi and ground water at Tirupattur, two feasible schemes were formulated and they are being implemented and the allegations of the petitioner that the scheme is being implemented in a hurry without consideration of the availability of ground water at Sombai Oothu at Karaikudi and Tirupattur are denied. The learned Advocate General referred to the annexures to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu and pointed out that only after satisfying with the feasibility of the schemes, they were implemented and that the inhabitants of Karaikudi would get 110 litres of water per person per day, once both the schemes were implemented. The learned Advocate General further contended that the inhabitants of Karaikudi have no monopoly that the water of Sombai Oothu should be used only to quench the thirst of the inhabitants of Karaikudi and not to the neighbouring districts within the State of Tamil Nadu. In any event, the right to tap underground water is vested with the
Government and it is open to the Government to tap the underground water and equally distribute the same to the people ef Tamil Nadu without restricting it only to the particular inhabitants of a particular area like Karaikudi. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent adopted the arguments of the learned Advocate General.
9. Learned Advocate General vehemently
contended that the allegations made against
the third respondent are vague and without
any basis. He contended that even before the
third respondent become the Minister, the
then Government of Tamil Nadu had formu
lated the scheme as far back in 1987 and the
allegations that the scheme to take water from
Sambai Uthu in Karaikudi to Tirupattur has
been initiated at the instance of the third
respondent to satisfy the inhabitants of Tiru
pattur has no basis and the same should be
rejected.
10. I have considered the contentions of Mr. S. Govindswaminathan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the contentions of the learned Advocate General for respondents 1 and 3 and the contentions of counsel for respondent 2. In the instant case, as the main allegation of the petitioner is that the scheme to take the ground water from Sambai Uthu at Karaikudi to Tirupattur which is 20 kilometres away, was formulated without any preliminary investigation of the availability of the ground water of Sambai Uthu and availability of ground water in Tirupattur and as some doubts were raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the reports relied upon by the. State Government, this Court by an order dated 2-2-.1996, appointed Mr. Shobnath, Superintending Engineer, South Eastern Coastal Regional, Central Ground Water Board, as Commissioner, and the order reads as follows :–
“1. Mr. Shobhnath, Superintending Engineer, South Eastern Coastal Region, Central Ground Water Board, is appointed as a Commissioner to submit a report to this Court with regard to the total availability of ground water in Sambai Uthu in Karaikudi and also the total availability of ground water in Tirupattur;
2. The Commissioner shall examine all the aspects of the availability of the ground water in Sambai Uthu (Spring) with special reference to supply of minimum of 100 litres of water per day for each inhabitant with further increase taking into consideration of the future growth in the population of Karaikudi;
3. The Commissioner shall also examine the total availability of ground water in Tirupattur with reference to daily supply of water to the inhabitants at 75 litres per day. Both the respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner shall furnish necessary particulars and informations called for by the Commissioner and shall give co-operation to the Commissioner in order to complete his report. The Commissioner shall have the assistance of the scientists of the Central Government Departments. The State Government, the local authorities of Karaikudi and Tirupattur and the petitioner shall furnish to the Commissioner necessary particulars.
4. The Commissioner shall also examine whether the ground water in Sambai Uthu in Karaikudi is sufficient to supply the needs of the inhabitants of both Karaikudi at 110 litres of water per day and the needs of inhabitants of Tirupattur at the rate of 75 litres per day without drying the ground water of Sambai Uthu.
5. The Commissioner is directed to submit his report to this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. The Registry is directed to serve a copy of the order to the senior Centra! Government Standing Counsel for the purpose of forwarding the same to the Commissioner, Mr. Shobhnath, forthwith.”
The Commissioner submitted the report, which reads as follows :-- "Total Availability of Ground Water in Sambai Uthu :-- Sambai Uthu is located in Karaikudi aquifer which is demarcated near the crystalline contact at Padarakudi in the west, Devakottai Rastha in the east, Sankarpuram in the south and extends in N.E. direction
in between Pallatlur and Sakkottai towards Arantangi in Pudukottai district along Alangudi Tanjore line and also in S.W. towards Kallal. This is commonly identified as ‘Sambai Uthu aquifer’, and the head works near Karaikudi old bus stand only is named as ‘Sambai Uthu’. The area is underlain by Tertiary sandstone followed by thick Gondwana sediments. The thickness of sediments at Karaikudi structural bore well drilled by ONGC is reported as 310 m. CGWB has drilled one exploratory well in Amaravathi Pudur, east of Devakottai Pasta and a production well at Kottaiyur. TWAD Board and private agencies have drilled a number of production tube wells for drinking water supply, domestic and industrial uses and also a few for irrigation. The depth of tube wells are in the range of 70-10m tapping 30-40m thick granular zones. The yield varies from 200-800 1pm. Also, there are number of shallow dug wells for domestic use. The number of tube wells in the entire aquifer area of about 150 sq. km. is estimated around 200 but of which about 20 are being pumped out at a higher discharge of 700 1pm. on an average 20 hours a day (6.132 MCM per annum) (water supply and chemical factory wells) and others are pumping at 100-200 1pm. for 3 to 5 hours a day (2.1315 MCM per annum).
It is noticed that the yield of tube wells are high along western contact with crystallines (Sedimentary-Crystalline contact fault) and thickness of sand layer as well as grain size changes in depth below 90m and is fine grained towards east and S.E. An area of 5 km width and 30 km length is covered by this sedimentary basin (Graben structure) with water table aquifer and deep confined to semi confined aquifers.
The tap layer is lateritic in nature and yield of dug wells tapping water table aquifer are low. The water level varies from 6 to 7m in February 1996, comparatively deep due to poor rain fall in this year. Correct static piezometic head of the confined semiconfined aquifer is not available due to prevailing cone of depression on account of pumping of majority of existing tube wells only pumping
level of unsteady state is available. If the pumping at Sambai Uthu head works is stopped for 4 hours the water level rises to 3.8m below ground level. The free flow is reported during rainy season only.
The pumping level is nearly established around 20m bgl in Sambai Uthu well field on pumping by 7 wells simultaneously at an average rate of 635 1pm per well, measured from the inflow to reservoir on 10-2-1996. The draw down in 90 minutes in well field measured at well No. 2A on 10-2-1996 was 2.5m and recovery was 1.5m in 30 minutes.
The long duration pumping sets at Servar Oorani on February 12/13, 1996 with a constant discharge of 356 1pm recorded maximum draw down on 6.10m in pumping well and 1.10m in observation well located 65m away from pumping well. The transmissivity is estimated as 227m2/day and storativity 9×104. The potential of Karaikudi aquifer estimated by CGWB in 1987-88 was of the order of 20 MCM. The present studies also indicate the potential to the tune of 19.2 MCM.
The sub-surface flow from adjoining high grounds are towards this structural basin. The inferred sub-surface flow direction are indicated in the hydrogeological section along Kunnakudi Devakottai section (Fig.1). The inferred recharge tract for deeper aquifer is also demarcated. The static storage in deeper zones are not developed at present due to potential zones available at shallow depth. The estimated ground water storage of deeper aquifer assuming 3% effective porosity and 30m average aquifer thickness in top 100m in an area of 150 sl. km. of sedimentary basin is 135 MCM. This includes the dynamic component of 19.2 MCM indicated earlier.
2. Availability of Ground Water in Tiru-pattur :
Tirupattur town is located in crystalline rock terrain with average weathering thickness of 8m. The annual rainfall is 988.3mm. There are number of bore wells and dug wells giving low yield. The quality of water is poor in many pockets. The electrical conductivity recorded during the survey is 2500-5000 micro
siemens/cm at 25c in general with extremes of 300 to 11300 micro seimens/cm at 25c. There are three minor streams, namely, Palar, Virusuliar and Manimultar which are emphemeral in nature and carry only-flood water during heavy rainy days. The thickness of alluvium is 8-10m in these river beds. The palaeo-delta and other sedimentary tracts located in the southern side of Tirupattur are found to have more clay and Ranker layers. The quality of ground water is poor in major part of the alluvial cover due to the presence of Kanker. The sand patches in river bed and weathered rocks in high grounds have better quality of water. The lineament identified from aerial photographs in south-western side of Tirupattur had been checked in ground and found to be a quartzite ridge without any shear effect and ground water potential is negligible in this contact zone.
The existing head works at Karuvalkurichi has two manhole wells linked with infiltration gallery and one infiltration well. The water level in adjoining private well is 3.5m below ground level indicating that the river bed has only 2m saturation at present. Inflow to pumping well is measured as 180 1pm (2.5 lakh litres per day). In peak summer, this may be reduced. Further, augmentation of river bed spurce is not feasible due to limited sand thickness. A dug well at Kalmettumedu 2 km south of Tirupattur located near pond had static water level of 4.08m bgl on 13-2-1996. The pumping test conducted in this 5.35 diameter and 11.58m deep well on 14-2-1996 indicated that the recovery in 24 hours is only 0.18m after complete dewatering.
The prevailing hydrogeological and hydro-chemical condition in Tirupattur and surrounding areas are not favourable for development of ground water for getting sustained yield from bore wells or dug wells. Out of a total area of 163.80 sq. km. of Tirupattur block, only 80 sq. km. is having fresh water. Due to limited storage condition of aquifers and slope towards east and south east, recharge from major part of hard rock terrain goes as sub-surface flow to sedimentary aquifer in the east. The estimated fresh water pockets in an area of 40 sq. km. in Tirupattur
area with 3m fluctuation and 1.5 per cent specific yield is around 1.8 MCM which is utilised by public bore wells and private irrigation dug wells. The sustainability is poor due to unfavourable aquifer condition.
3. Availability of Ground Water in Sambai Uthu with Special Reference to Supply of 110 LPCD to Karaikkudi :
The 1991 census of Government of India recorded the population of Karaikudi Municipality as 71,965 and that of Karaikudi U.A. as 1,10,926. The rate of annual growth is estimated as 1,5%. The present population is estimated as 76,381 (Karaikudi M) and 1,17,732 (Karaikudi UA) and for the year 2021 A.D. it will be 1,12,481 of Karaikudi M and 1,73,377 of Karaikudi UA.
The rural population of Karaikudi Taluk as per 1991 census is 99,857 which at the growth rate of 1% will be 1,34,592 in 2021 A.D. Thus the ultimate population of Karaikudi Taluk in 2021 A.D. is estimated to be 3,07,969 which will be depending upon this Karaikudi aquifer for water supply. Taking 110 LPCD for entire population of 1,78,877 of Karaikudi U.A. in 2021 A.D., the water demand will be 6.96 MCM for urban population and at 40 LPCD for the rural population of 1,34,592 the demand will be 1,965 MCM. Hence a! total of 8.925 MCM will be the ultimate demand of water supply from Karaikudi aquifer. The estimated annual replenishable source in the Karaikudi aquifer, taking the whole basin as a unit is 19.2 MCM, which is more than sufficient to meet the demand. The present irrigation and industrial use in this area is nominal and included in present draft. Further, industrial growth should be regulated in this basin in view of likely pollution risks.
In Sambai Uthu head works out of 9 tube wells constructed, one has become defunct. Depending on repairs and maintenance of pumping systems, 7 or 8 tube wells have been working at a time. In addition, 4 more tube wells at other head works have been working. All these are meant for supply of water exclusively to the population of Karaikudi Municipality. For the rest of the population in Karaikudi U.A. Separate authority, viz.,
village Panchayats are looking after. The log books of Sambai Uthu Head Works revealed that 64,53,750 litres per day (avg. pumping hours 19.805 per well) had been pumping out before power cut was imposed due to load shedding. It is reported that out of 4 tubewells at other Head Works two tube wells had been pumping at 700 1pm. per well and the remaining two at 400 1pm for 20 hours a day. However, taking 500 Ipms of avg. pumping by each tubewell for 20 hours a day 24, 00,000 litres had been pumping out a day from these headworks. Thus the water supply to 76,381 population of Karaikkudi Municipality before load-shedding had been 116 LPCD. Subsequent to the load-shedding w.e.f. 7-1-1996, 53,63,210 litres per day (avg. pumping hours 16.85 per well) have been pumping out from the tubewelts at Sambai Uthu head-works, Taking other four tubewells at other headworks as mentioned above working 16 hours per day, the water supply to Karaikkudi Municipality is 95 LPCD at present.
However, on 14-2-1996, it was submitted
by different sections of the public that the
areas like, Kalanivasal, Aruna Nagar,
Meenakshipuram, Therku Theru, Muthu-
patinam and some other local pockets were
not receiving water supply for more than 1/2
hours to 3 hours resulting in scarcity in spite
of adequate pumpage.
The pumping rate at Sambai Uthu head-works was estimated on 10-2-1996. The total quantity pumped from 7 tubewells for 17 minutes was computed as 7,414 cu. metre and discharge worked out to be 635 1pm per tubewell. However, taking 600 1pm avg discharge per well for 8 wells at Sambai Uthu headworks and pumping only 12 hours a day, the quantity pumped out will 3456 m3. Considering, an average of 500 1pm from each of other four wells for only 12 hours pumping a day another 1440 m3/day will be available. Further, assuming all other 4 tubewells, under improvement scheme, are pumped at the rate of 600 1pm for only 12 hours, another 1728 m3 will be supplemented. Thus for only 12 hours bumping by each tubewell in Sambai Uthu and other headworks constructed for water kipply to Karaikkudi Municipality, total
supply will be 87 LPCD for the present
population of 76,381. However, from the
ground water potential studies and the study
of aquifer performance test carried out on
February 13-14, 1996, construction of addi
tional tubewells is feasible for 12 hours per
day pumping to match the supply of 110
LPCD.
4. AVAILABILITY OF GROUND WATER IN TIRUPATTUR WITH REFERENCE TO SUPPLY OF 75 LPCD,
The ground water potential of Tirupattur town is very low. There are 90 hand pumps in the town in the depth range of 150′ to 170′ (45 to 52m). Most of these wells have recorded electrical conductivity in the range ofj2500 to 5000 micro Siemens per cm at 25C which is above the permisisble limit for drinking . water. There are only few local pockets, such as Narikuravar Kudiyiruppu and Indira Nagar having potable water. The yield of the bore wells in Tirupattur area varies from 2.27 to 198 1pm with average of 20 1pm and most of them are not sustainable. Considering both the quality and the sustainable quantity of ground water as mentioed above, the ground water pptential is not available for drinking water supply schemes.
The headworks located in fresh water pocket in sedimentary tract in the Southern side of Tirupattur in Manimuthar flood plain is giving only 2.5 lakh litre per day at present. Thus for the present population of 25010 of Tirupattur town the water supply is only 10 LPCD. There is no scope for augmentation from the present source due to very thin mantle of sand present in the flood plain. If we consider the ultimate population of 36,831 for the year 2021 A.D., the per capita water supply will be still less. The actual demand at the rate of 75 LPCD works out to 0.685 MCM per annum for the present population of 25010 and it will be 1.01 MCM/annum for ultimate population in 2021 A.D.
5. The ultimate demand of Karaikkudi Municipalities at the rate of 110 LPCD for the year 2021 AD will be 6.96 MCM/annum. When it is extended for the urban population of 1,73,377 and rural population of 1,34,592
of entire Karaikkudi Taluk at the rale of 110 LPCD and 40 LPCD respectively, the total demand from Karaikkudi aquifer area is 8.925 MCM per annum. The total replenishable availability is 19.2 MCM per annum is Karaikkudi aquifer. Also accounting lor the existing withdrawal by irrigation and industries the demand of 1.01 MCM per annum in the ultimate population of Tiruppattur town can be easily met from this aquifer without any desaturation of the aquifer.
The seasonable fluctuation in the pressure head due to variation in the recharge depending on the vagaries of monsoon can lower the pumping water level from the present 20M bgl to the order of 30 m bgl in the 100 in deep aquifer system. The static source of deeper acquifer can meet the unforeseen drought years and it will he replenished during the pext surplus rainfall cycle. The structural disposition of the aquifer is such that the sea water intrusion will not take place in this area. It if also felt that the recharge area should be free from any pollution which calls for regulation of industries.”
11. A reply affidavit has been filed with regard to the report wherein the earlier allegations of the petitioners are once again repeated and it is stated that the Commissioner has not properly given the ground water potential of Tirupattur and that the report of the Commissioner is based upon the data that was available with the respondents and the office of the Central Ground Water Board. I have considered the contentions of Mr. S. Govindswaminathan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the contentions of Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, the learned Advocate-General for respondents-1, and 3, and counsel for tespondent-2. It is clear from the report submitted by the Commissioner, Mr. Shobhanath, that sufficient water is available in Sambai Uthu to satisfy the needs of the inhabitants of both Karaikudi and Tirupaltur. The Commissioner has stated in his report that there is no sufficient water at Tirupattur, whereas there is sufficient ground water at Karaikkudi from the Sambai Uthu and the frequent rains are re-charging the underground water of Sambai Uthu and the
water needs of Karaikkudi as well as Tirupattur will be met by ground water from Sambai Uthu. However, as the inhabitants of Karakkudi have apprehensions that tapping of water from Karaikkudi and taking the water of Tirupattur will deny them the minimum water supply, in the event of over-explitation of underground water and recharging of the underground water is not possible when the rains are not sufficient, it is necessary that the water needs of. the in-habiants of Karaikkuidi should be safeguarded.
12. Thought certain allegations have been made against the third respondent, but they are vague and the same have not been substantiated by material particulars. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Mr. Kannappan, the third respondent, who has denied all the allegations. The third respondent has also pointed out that the scheme to, take water from Sambai Oothu in Karaikkudi to Tirupattur was there as early as 1987 even before he became a minister. As the scheme to take water from Sambai Oothu in Karaink-kudi to Tirupattur was formulated as early as 1987 even before the third respondent became a minister, the allegations of the petitioner to the effect that the scheme is formulated at the instance of the third respondent and executed in haste have not been proved. Therefore, I reject the said contentions.
13. From the pleadings of the respective parties, it is clear that the views of the local inhabitants of Karaikudi have not been taken into consideration before implementation of the scheme. Further, earlier the Karaikudi Municipality opposed the said scheme by a resolution dated 14-7-1987 and there has been public agitation against the said scheme, It is further alleged by the petitioner that if the seheme is completed, Sombai Ootgu which is 3,000 years old will dry up due to over-exploitation. It was also alleged that without conducting a detailed investigation regarding the availability of water at Tirupattur, defendants-1 and 2 are trying to implement the Tirupatur Water Scheme by tapping the ground water in Sambai Oothu in Karaikudi. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first
respondent, all the said allegations were denied. As per the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, the scheme was already there and “only the financial sanction was made after the present Government came into power in the year 1991 with a view to complete the water supply scheme”. Further, the scheme was published in the Government Gazette dated 14-8-1993 and the petitioner has approached the Court belatedly. The grievance of the petitioner is that the views of local inhabitants of Karaikkudi have not been taken into consideration before implementing the scheme and there has been public agitation against the implementation of the said scheme.
14. There is force in the contention of the learned Advocate-General that there is nothing wrong in tapping the water resources by the State in a particular area or locality of the State and its equitable distribution to other parts of the State. I am also of the considered-view that as the resource of the ground water vests with the State Government, it is open to the State Government to formulate any scheme in order to supply adequate water not only to the inhabitants of the areas where the underground water is located, but also to the inhabitants of the neighbouring districts.
15. I reject the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner to the effect that no reliance could be placed on the report of the Commissioner appointed by this Court. The Commissioner has given a detailed report after taking services of scientists working with the Central Government. I find that there are no sufficient reasons to reject the report of the Commissioner. However, I feel that sufficient safeguards should be provided in order to satisfy the needs of the inhabitants of Karaikkudi first and if the water needs of the inhabitants of Karaikkudi is satisfied, it is open to the State Government to supply excess water to the neighbouring districts of Tamil Nadu.
16. However in a democratic State, the views of the people should be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the views of the people of Karaikkudi have not been taken into consideration before implementing the
scheme. Earlier Karaikkudi Municipality has actually opposed the said scheme by passing a resolution dated 14-7-1987 and there has been public agitation against the said scheme. It is unfortunate that elections to local bodies have not been conducted for a long time in the State and the Special Officers appointed by the State Government may not reflect the real pulse of the people. Accordingly, 1 am of considered view that the scheme to take water from Sombai Oothu to Tirupattur has to be reviewed by the Stale of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent herein afresh, taking into consideration the availability of the ground water and also the views of the inhabitants of Karaikkudi. In view of the above, the State of Tamil Nadu the first respondent herein is directed to review the scheme afresh.
17. In the event, the first respondent decides to implement the scheme, sufficient safeguards should be provided with regard to the supply of water to the inhabitants of Karaikkudi. Accordingly, respondents-1 and 2 shall ensure the inhabitants of Karaikkudi, supply of 110 litres of water per day per person. After the needs of the inhabitants of Karaikkudi are satisfied by supplying 110 litres per day per person, first and second respondents are free to utilise excess water to Tirupattur scheme. A permanent committee consisting of three members to monitor the working of the scheme shall be constituted by the first respondent. The committee shall consist of (1) Collector of Ponmuthu Ramalingam Thevar District, (2) Chairman or in the absence of Chairman, Special Officer of Karaikkudi Municipality; (3) one representative of Drinking Water Protection Committee, Karaikkudi and Pulavar Palani being the fist representative. In the event of resignation of Pulavar Palani or when vacancy arises due to death or otherwise, the District Judge shall appoint a prominent social worker lof Karaikkudi as the third member of the Committee. The Committee shall meet at least once in six months and monitor the working of the Water Scheme and shall ensure 110 litres of water daily per person for the inhabitants of Karaikkudi and only excess water may be used for supply of water to
Tirupattur. Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
18. Order accordingly.