The State Government cannot withhold the operationalization of a completed public utility project, funded by the public exchequer, based on local disputes or a lack of political will.

Order

1. On 23.02.2023, the Officers including the Superintendent Engineer of the Water Resources Department was present and he has stated that one Lift Irrigation Project has already been constructed which would benefit 13 villages. However, the other residents of the nearby villages are opposing the operation of the Lift Canal claiming that they too should be benefited and water should be supplied to one and all. The Court realized and observed that as under:-

"The root of the problem lies in demand for supply of water by residents of another set of villages. It is stated that the proposal for construction of another set of Lift Irrigation Project has been forwarded to the State Government which may take some time. Learned State counsel would submit that a short time may be granted to seek instructions in the matter and inform the Court regarding further development. In the meantime, the administration is required to assess the situation. On the next date of hearing, the State should be in a position to place before the Court a concrete proposal so that appropriate directions may be issued in the case. We may observe that ideally speaking once a project has been prepared, all efforts should be made to ensure that water supply system is operational and those who could get benefit on the ground of supply are not deprived of water supply. Considering that start of operation of the water supply system through Lift Irrigation Scheme may create law and order situation, we are inclined to give a very short time to the State to respond to this situation."

2. On 29.03.2023, the Court found that the proposal for construction of another set of Lift Irrigation Project forwarded to the State Government was rejected and as on that date, there was no other scheme in the area for water supply. The Court, therefore, passed an order that so far as the present water supply system is concerned, which had already been developed, should be made operational, with further directions that all those who are coming in way of irrigation system need to be dealt with strictly by the administration. Further, any step of obstructing the supply of water shall be taken as an act of violating the directions issued by this Court and appropriate proceedings may also be operationlised against those who are creating obstruction. The Court observed as under:-

"We are of the view that once the supply system has already been developed, irrigation facility ought to be extended to the needy persons and the same cannot be deprived merely because a group of persons is opposing the same and extending threat. All those, who are coming in the way of irrigation system, need to be dealt with strictly by the administration. Further, any step of obstructing the supply of water shall also be taken as an act of violating the directions issued by this Court as appropriate proceedings may also be operationalized against those, who are creating obstruction in implementation of the directions issued by this Court in the present case."

3. The Court further directed that the State Counsel to inform the steps taken to operationalise the water supply/irrigation system.

4. The Officers were present in the Court on 18.12.2024. It appears that no further proceedings were taken up on that date and merely, their presence was exempted. Since then, this case has not come up before the Court.

5. Today, learned Additional Advocate General Mr.B.S. Chhaba appearing for the Department submits that there is a dispute between the villag