MP High Court Dismisses PIL Against Indore's AMRUT 2.0 Water Project, Prioritizes Future Needs

Indore, MP - The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the implementation of the AMRUT 2.0 scheme, a major project aimed at augmenting the water supply for the city of Indore. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, ruled that the non-completion of a previous scheme is not a valid reason to halt a new, essential project designed to meet the city's burgeoning population and future requirements.

Background of the Case

The PIL was filed by petitioner Mahesh Garg, who identified himself as a social worker. He sought to quash resolutions passed by the Indore Municipal Corporation and the Mayor-in-Council that approved the detailed project report for supplying fresh water under the AMRUT 2.0 scheme.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Stance: The primary argument advanced by the petitioner was that the earlier AMRUT 1.0 scheme, formulated in 2011, had not yet been fully implemented. He contended that launching the AMRUT 2.0 scheme would place an unnecessary and additional financial burden on the state exchequer without first completing the prior project.

Court's Observations on the Scheme's Justification: The court, however, took note of the data presented in the AMRUT 2.0 scheme records. It highlighted the significant changes in Indore since 2011:

- The city's population has grown from 19.64 lakhs to nearly 22 lakhs.

- 29 new villages have been incorporated into the Indore Municipal Corporation.

- The city's area has expanded by 280 square kilometers.

- Population projections estimate a rise to over 82 lakhs by 2050.

The scheme documents pointed to a current water supply of 323 MLD against a demand that creates a shortage of 97.67 MLD, a deficit expected to worsen with population growth. The AMRUT 2.0 project aims to address this by increasing the water supply to 1650 MLD.

Court's Reasoning and Judgment

The High Court firmly rejected the petitioner's contentions, emphasizing the importance of forward-looking governance and expert planning for essential public services.

On Incomplete Prior Schemes: The bench stated that the argument to halt a new scheme due to the partial implementation of an old one was unacceptable. The court's order noted:

> "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."

The court pointed out that 14 years had passed since the AMRUT 1.0 scheme was formulated, and the experience gained by the authorities necessitated a fresh approach to solve the city's water shortage problems.

On Financial Burden and Expert Formulation: The court also dismissed the argument regarding the financial burden on the exchequer, especially for a project concerning a basic necessity like drinking water.

> "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..."

The judgment underscored that such large-scale urban projects are formulated by "expert bodies comprising of the town planners and other engineers and experts" who have identified a clear need for enhanced water supply. The court also recorded that the petitioner's counsel had "fairly concede[d] that the water supply in the city is inadequate."

Final Decision

Finding no grounds to interfere with the policy decision of the municipal and state authorities, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The ruling clears the way for the implementation of the AMRUT 2.0 scheme, reinforcing the principle that courts should be slow to interfere in policy matters based on expert assessment, particularly when they address the future needs of a growing urban population.