Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 3907
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
A. Nallusamy and Others
Versus
District Collector, Karur District, Karur and Others
W.P. Nos. 165 and 1981 of 2009 and Cont. P (MD) No. 381 of 2009 and M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 to 3 of 2009
Decided On : 30th September, 2009
K. Govindarajan, T.V. Sivakumar and Ms. D. Geetha for Petitioners
K.M. Vijayakumar, Additional Government Pleader, T.V. Sivakumar for N. Shanmugaselvam, M. Suresh Kumar and S. Sivathilakar for Respondent
The discretionary nature of water drawal permissions, the authority's power to cancel permissions in public interest, and the application of the 'useless formality theory' in administrative actions.
Headnote:
Water Drawal Permission - Disputed Water Drawal Permission - 18.3.1992 - S. No. 1351/2C - S. Nos. 1353 and 1356 - Amaravathy River - Forgery Allegation - Cancelled Permission - Public Interest - Natural Justice - Useless Formality Theory
Fact of the Case:
The case involved multiple petitions related to the grant and cancellation of water drawal permissions from a well near the Amaravathy river. The authenticity of the 18.3.1992 permission was disputed, and allegations of forgery were raised. The court considered the discretionary nature of water drawal permissions and the public interest involved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the permission was justified based on the alleged forgery, public opposition, and the discretionary powers of the authority. It held that the petitioner did not have a vested right for water drawal and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The key issues included the authenticity of the water drawal permission, misuse of the permission, public interest, and the application of natural justice principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretionary nature of water drawal permissions, the authority's power to cancel permissions in public interest, and the application of the 'useless formality theory' in determining the need for notice or opportunity in administrative actions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the related petitions were closed. The District collector was directed to implement the cancellation of permissions within three weeks.
Since the issue involved in these matters are common, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
2. W.P. No. 165 of 2009 has been filed to quash the order passed by the first respondent in proceedings dated 5.11.2008. By the said order, the first respondent has cancelled an order passed by the second respondent granting an order that the pipeline formed by the petitioner should not be disturbed.
3. W.P. No. 1981 of 2009 has been filed for a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent (petitioner in W.P. No. 165 of 2009) pursuant to their legal notice dated 22.12.2008. In the said legal notice, the petitioner had called upon the respondents 1 to 3 to cancel all permissions for drawal of water from S. Nos. 1351 and 1173 issued in favour of Thiru. Nallusamy and Thiru. Kandasamy and specifically called upon the third respondent to disconnect the power supply used to energise agriculture pump-sets in the said survey numbers.
4. Cont. No. 381 of 2009 has been filed for disobedience of the order in W.P. No. 11531 of 2008, dated 16.12.2008 by which there was a direction to implement an order passed by the District Collector, dated 17.11.2008. By which the District Collector has granted permission for the purpose of drawal of water.
5. The issue involved in all these cases is relating to a permission which was granted for drawal of water from a well which is situated in close proximity to the Amaravathy river. It is stated that a permission was granted by the Commissioner of the panchayat union on 18.3.1992 for drawal of water from S. No. 1351/2C Sanapiratti Village and to lay a pipe line through the road to a distance of 1000 meters for the purpose of drawing of water for agricultural operations. This permission granted on 18.3.1992 was sought to be interfered and an order was passed on 17.10.2008 granting an interim order to the effect that none should damage the pipeline which has been formed pursuant to the order dated 18.3.1992. This interim order dated 17.10.2008 has been cancelled by the order dated 5.11.2008 which is impugned in W.P. No. 165 of 2009.
6. The only issue which is to be considered in all these matters is whether the petitioner in W.P. No. 165 of 2009 is entitled to the benefit under the order dated 18.3.1992. The matter was hotly contested between the parties. The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 1981 of 2009 is that the petitioner in W.P. No. 165 of 2009 has played a fraud by fabricating the order dated 18.3.1992 by including two other survey numbers and after bringing such forged document has filed a suit in O.S. No. 630 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur and has also obtained order of status quo in I.A. No. 969 of 2008, dated 4.12.2008. A certified copy of the order dated 18.3.1992 filed in O.S. No. 630 of 2008 has been produced in Court which shows that Thiru. Nallusamy is entitled to draw water for the purpose of irrigating his lands in S. Nos. 1353 and 1356 which has to be noted that in the order dated 18.3.1992 which has also filed in page 1 of the typed set of papers in support of the writ petition in W.P. No. 165 of 2009. The two survey numbers mentioned does not find place and it states that Thiru. Nallusamy and Thiru. V. Kandasamy are entitled to draw water from the well in S. No. 1351/2C for the purpose of irrigating the lands and to lay pipe line to the distance of 1000 meters.
7. Therefore, it is to be noted that W.P. No. 165 of 2009 has been filed solely based upon a permission dated 18.3.1992, the genuinity of such document as to whether the petitioner in W.P. No. 165 of 2009 has filed a forged document in the suit in O.S. No. 630 of 2008 has to be enquired by the first respondent and it is left open to the first respondent to initiate proper action as he deems fit and proper.
8. For the disposal of the present writ petitions, what is required to be seen i
