Back
2021 Supreme(Sikk) 131
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Meenakshi Madan Rai, Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, JJ.
Shiva Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim & Ors. - Respondents
WP(PIL) No. 04 of 2019
Decided On : 02-08-2021
Ms. Rachana Rai, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, Additional Advocate General, Mr. S. K. Chettri, Government Advocate, Ms. Pema Bhutia, Assistant Government Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2; Ms. Sangita Pradhan, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 3; Ms. Gita Bista, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel), for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to drinking water as essential to the right to life, requiring state compliance with public welfare obligations.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to drinking water as an essential aspect of the right to life - The petitioner contended that the residents of certain areas faced a severe shortage of drinking water and that the authorities falsely reported the completion of a water supply scheme. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Public Interest Litigation - The court emphasized the efficacy of the public interest litigation mechanism in addressing grievances related to fundamental rights violation concerning essential services like drinking water. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that residents of Sumbuk-Kartikey and Lungchok-Kamarey experienced a long-standing lack of drinking water despite a sanctioned scheme, while completion reports were falsely submitted by responsible authorities.
Findings of Court:
The authorities expressed their willingness to undertake the necessary works to provide drinking water, which satisfied the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the completion reports were misleading and what actions were necessary to address the water supply issue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized the fundamental right to drinking water under Article 21 and upheld the utility of public interest litigation in enforcing these rights.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Rai, J.:--
The Petitioner herein is before this Court on grounds inter alia that the people of Sumbuk-Kartikey and Lungchok-Kamarey have been facing acute drinking water shortage for the past several years. That, the Respondent No.2 sanctioned the water supply scheme under the Rural Infrastructure Development Fund financed by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) for the said areas. Tenders were issued for the said work and the Respondent No.3 was awarded the contract. Although the people in the area did not receive drinking water from the works put to tender which was to have been completed within 24 months from 16-12-2010, the Panchayat and other concerned authorities submitted the completion report to the Respondent No.2. Consequently, the people in these areas are still deprived of drinking water.
Various other complaints were also raised by the Petitioner pertaining to the quality of work carried out by the Respondent No.3 and it was averred that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution to the Petitioner and the people of the area was grossly violated by non-execution of the works.
It is submitted by Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State-Respondents No.1 and 2 that vide an Affidavit dated 30-07-2021 it has been inter alia mentioned that a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was called by the Block Administrative Centre (BAC), Sumbuk, South Sikkim, on 11-06- 2021 to compete in the bidding within the territorial jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat where the work is to be executed, giving details of the work for the purpose of providing drinking water to the areas highlighted by the Petitioner. There was, however, no participation in the bid. Hence, the Department had decided to carry out the required works in the Sumbuk-Kartikey and Lungchok-Kamarey areas. The works will be for augmentation and retrofitting of the rural water supply.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that she has no objection to the proposal of the State-Respondents No.1 and 2 as the Department will be undertaking the relevant works. That, in the light of this development this Petition may be disposed of.
In view of the grounds put forth and the express satisfaction of the Petitioner, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
