Public Interest Litigation cannot prevent the formulation of new schemes for essential services like water supply due to prior unimplemented schemes or financial burdens.

ORDER

Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice

Petitioner has filed the subject Public Interest Litigation seeking quashing of Resolution dated 07.10.2023 of the Indore Municipal Corporation and Resolution dated 14.09.2023 of the Mayor-in-Council, wherein a detailed project report has been approved for supply of fresh water under AMRUT 2.0.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the year 2011 AMRUT 1.0 scheme was formulated, however said scheme has not yet been completely implemented and despite the same, AMRUT 2.0 scheme has been floated. He submits that an extra burden would be passed on to the exchequer for the same.

3. We note from the AMRUT 2.0 scheme records that in the year 2011, the population of Indore was about 19.64 lacs and thereafter 29 villages have been added in the Indore Municipal Corporation which has taken the population to nearely 22 lacs and the area of the city has increased by 280 square kilometer. The scheme notes that there is an expectation that by the year 2050, the population may exceed 82 lacs which will require substantial amount of drinking and water supply. The scheme notes that the present supply of water is 323 MLD whereas there is a shortage of 97.67 MLD and with the augmentation of the population as well as the area further water supply is required. Consequently the said project has been proposed to increase the water supply to 1650 MLD.

4. The contention of the petitioner that since AMRUT 1.0 has not yet been fully implemented, respondent should be prevented from formulating a subsequent scheme for enhancing the water supply cannot be accepted. The petitioner claims to be a social worker. The schemes which are proposed are formulated by expert bodies comprising of the town planners and other engineers and experts. The scheme itself stipulates that there is a requirement of enhanced water supply keeping in view the increase in population as well as the municipal area of the city of Indore. Merely because an earlier scheme has not been fully implemented is no ground to prevent the State Government and the Municipal Corporation from formulating better schemes keeping in view the future requirement. Admittedly, the earlier scheme was formulated in the year 2011, however, 14 years have been passed since then. The experience of the State Government as well as Municipal Corporation in the last 14 years have necessitated formulation of a fresh scheme to elevate the problem of shortage of water supply in the city.

5. Learned counsel fairly concedes that the water supply in the city is inadequate.

6. Merely because the scheme is going to place a financial burden on the exchequer, is no ground to refuse implementation of a new scheme particularly when it pertains to providing adequate drinking water supply to the residents of the city keeping in view the present as well as future requirement. The experts have felt the need for formulating a scheme for providing adequate drinking water. Consequently, we are not inclined to entertain the petition any further. Petition is accordingly dismissed.