The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of disclosing the purpose of water extraction and the nature of construction when applying for ground water extraction, and the need for rationality, control, safety, and sustainability in ground water use.

JUDGMENT :

It is now being increasingly recognized universally that ground water is an essential component of global water resources and a special type of mineral wealth – with its impact on social infrastructure, economy and environmental balance being decisive and momentous.

2. 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.

3. The State of Kerala also has a well thought of statutory and regulatory scheme and frame work, within which the ground water resources are governed; but alas, in some instances – as the facts of this case would illustrate – they are dealt with casually and as a mere formality.

4. 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.

5. The petitioner impugns Ext.P5 order issued by the 2nd respondent – Director, Ground Water Department, on the ground that the conditions imposed therein is contrary to law and impossible to perform.

6. Sri. Jacob Sebastian – learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that his client had earlier made an application to obtain a No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) from the 4th respondent – District Officer to construct a bore well for extracting ground water, to be used for domestic purposes; and that this was allowed, after a survey was conducted, as is evident from Ext.P1. He says that, however, the 3rd respondent -which is stated to be a Residents' Association of the area in question -filed Ext.P2 Appeal against Ext.P1 before the 2nd respondent, who then convened several meetings and commissioned a hydrological study, thus to issue Ext.P5. The learned counsel submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P5, there are several conditions imposed therein, which are impossible to perform, including that the ‘NOC’ for extraction of water will be permitted only based on the future recommendations of the District Level Evaluation Committee and after conducting a scientific assessment of the yield through pumping test. He submitted that the other conditions, coupled with the one mentioned above, would render it impossible for his client to dig any bore well. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P5 be set aside, arguing that the conditions mentioned therein are, in fact, only applicable to “Infrastructure Projects”, as has been specifically mentioned therein; while, what the petitioner intends to do is only to construct an Apartment Complex which does not fall within any “infrastructural” activity.

7. Sri. C.D. Dileep -learned counsel for respondent No.3, submitted that his client was constrained to prefer Ext.P2 Appeal before the 2nd respondent -Director because, Ext.P1 alleged ‘NOC’, did not mention the maximum water that could be extracted by the petitioner, particularly when his intention is to construct a large commercial or residential complex, the water consumption of which will be very large. He pointed out that, in Ext.P2, his client has specifically taken a contention that the purpose for the construction of the petitioner was not looked into before Ext.P1 had been issued; and that the availability of ground water, from the ambit of public interest, was also not adverted to, though it is statutorily mandatory to have so done, under Section 7(4) of the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002 (‘Act’ for short).

8. Sri. P.S. Appu – learned Government Pleader, adopted the submissions of Sri. C.D. Dileep; adding that Ext.P5 covers most of the deficiencies that can be attributed to Ext.P1 because, it has reduced the width of bore well to be constructed by the petitioner and has confined its depth to 50 metres. He pointed out that, in Ext.P1, the depth was fixed as 150 metres, while the diameter of the p