The judgment establishes that statutory permissions under the Panchayat Raj Act and WALTA Act are mandatory for operating an R.O. plant and digging bore wells, and a petitioner approaching court with unclean hands cannot claim relief, but the court may pass pragmatic directions to protect the public's right to clean drinking water.

ORDER :

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.

The above writ petition was filed to declare the inaction of respondents 4 to 7 in seizing the R.O. drinking water plant and bore-well situated in Sy.No.336 of Ippagunta Village, pursuant to a letter dated 23.07.2025, without issuing any notice, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri C. Rama Chandra Raju, learned counsel assisted by Sri P. Sivannarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appeared for respondents 1 to 3 & 5, Sri P. Nithin, learned counsel representing Sri M. Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondents 4 & 6, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appeared for respondent No.7.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner constructed the R.O. water plant in Sy.No.336, land admeasuring 155 Square Yards in Ippagunta Village, which is an ancestral property. The petitioner spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, to construct the R.O. water plant. Though there is a public drinking water system in the village, the water being supplied is not useful for domestic purposes and is not fit for human consumption. The petitioner has been collecting a nominal amount of Rs.3/- per 20-litre water can. The petitioner made a representation dated 09.06.2025 to respondent No.5, to issue permission. Respondent No.5, by an endorsement vide Rc.No.A/272/2025, dated 03.07.2025 (Ex.P5), rejected the permission. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.27 of 2025 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Singarayakonda, and the same is pending consideration. Respondent No.5 issued a letter dated 23.07.2025 (Ex.P1), alleging that the petitioner has been running the R.O. water plant without permission, and the same was served on the petitioner on 27.07.2025. Thereafter, the respondents 4 & 7 seized the water plant.

4. The writ petition was listed on 07.08.2025. An order of status-quo was granted, and the same is being extended from time to time.

5. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.6. It was contended, inter alia, that the petitioner filed a fake copy of resolution No.183, dated 13.05.2025, said to have been passed by the Gram Panchayat. The original resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat is Resolution No.190, dated 09.05.2025. The Gram Panchayat neither passed a resolution permitting the petitioner to run the R.O. plant, nor did the petitioner obtain permission from the Gram Panchayat to construct the structure. The house tax receipt filed by the petitioner is in relation to the shed in Sy.No.336, but not the R.O. water plant. The copies of resolution