Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4507
Milind Ramesh Phadke, J
Bharat Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 25002 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sameer Kumar Shrivastava
For the Respondents: Manish Saxena, Himanshu Rathore, Himanshu Pathak
The right to access potable water is an integral part of the right to life under Article 226, and State instrumentalities cannot avoid the responsibility of providing essential civic infrastructure by shifting liability amongst themselves due to administrative lapses or departmental ambiguity.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Right to access water - Essential civic amenity - Responsibility of State instrumentalities - Petitioner, a registered coloniser, sought directions for laying water pipelines to its colony as part of external development works - Respondents shifted responsibility inter se - Court held that the right to access water is an integral part of the right to life and cannot be denied due to administrative lapses or inter-departmental ambiguity. (Paras 24, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is a registered coloniser who developed a residential colony in Village Sigora, District Gwalior, after obtaining all necessary permissions and completing internal development works. Despite legal obligations, external infrastructure, specifically water supply pipelines, remained unexecuted. The respondents (SADA and M.P. Jal Nigam) disputed liability, with the former claiming it is only a regulatory body and the latter asserting that the petitioner's area fell outside the scope of its sanctioned multi-village water supply scheme.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the water infrastructure previously managed by the planning authority was transferred to the executing agency (Jal Nigam). Under current governmental arrangements and contractual obligations, the responsibility to provide water infrastructure now rests with the executing agency. The State and its instrumentalities cannot evade duties regarding basic amenities by shifting burdens between themselves.
Issues: Whether the respondents are obligated to provide external infrastructure (water pipelines) to the petitioner's colony and which entity bears this responsibility.
Ratio Decidendi: Where public authorities have assumed responsibility for water supply schemes, they cannot deprive citizens of essential civic amenities based on administrative confusion or the scope of existing contracts; the constitutional right to water mandates that the executing agency must ensure infrastructure reach to the locality.
Result: Petition allowed; respondent No.3 directed to lay water pipelines to the colony within three months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner requests mandatory directive for external development infrastructure as a registered coloniser. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner argues statutory and contractual duty of respondents to provide water supply infrastructure. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. sada disclaims role as service provider for water supply infrastructure. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. jal nigam argues against mandatory inclusion of colony within sanctioned water project scope. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. court finds that infrastructure transfer and contracts vest obligation for water supply in jal nigam. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. access to water is a basic right that state agencies must facilitate regardless of inter-departmental conflict. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
ORDER
The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred seeking following reliefs:
i. A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondent no.2 to complete external development work more particularly laying down of water pipeline in accordance with Rule 12 (v) and (vi) of Rules of 1995.
ii. A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondent no.2 & 3 to lay down main water pipeline in front of petitioner's project namely Vaishali Enclave situated at village Sigora District Gwalior.
iii. An appropriate order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to strictly comply with Rule 12 (vi) of Rules of 1999.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition pertains to the inaction on the part of the respondents in not completing the external development works like laying water pipelines etc, as mandated under Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Registration of Coloniser Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that despite fulfillment of all statutory obligations on its part, the respondents have failed to discharge their corresponding duties, particularly with regard to provision of essential infrastructure.
3. The petitioner is a duly registered coloniser under the Rules of 1999 and was granted a certificate of registration by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gwalior on 15.11.2011. The petitioner is the owner of land bearing Survey Nos. 637/3, 638, 639, 678, and 680/1, admeasuring 0.366, 0.376, 1.045, 0.251, and 1.599 hectares respectively, situated at Village Sigora, District Gwalior. With the intention of developing a residential colony over the said land, the petitioner applied for and obtained a Nazul No Objection Certificate from the Office of the Collector on 13.02.2013. As the subjected land fell within the notified area of the Special Area Development Authority, it was necessary for the petitioner to obtain development permission in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application for development permission on 12.04.2013. Upon scrutiny, SADA demanded various charges and fees, which were duly deposited by the petitioner. Thereafter, permission for development of a residential colony was granted vide order dated 11.09.2013. Pursuant to the aforesaid permission, the petitioner undertook and completed all internal development works of the colony in accordance with the applicable statutory requirements. The completion of such works was duly intimated to SADA, which, upon verification, issued a completion certificate acknowledging compliance by the petitioner. However, despite the petitioner having fulfilled all obligations casted upon it under the Rules of 1999, the respondents failed to carry out the external development works, including provision for basic amenities one of them being laying water pipelines, as required under law. Aggrieved by such inaction and failure on the part of the respondents to complete the ext
