IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 3357 of 2001 Between: Smt. B.Sarojamma, W/o.Venkata Ramana Reddy, Swargamvaripalle, Marella Village, K.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, k.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 The Deputy Director (Ground Water Department), Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring action of the respondents 1 & 2 in seizing the borewell belonging to the petitioner and situated in Sy.No.628 of Swargamvaripalle, Marella Village, K.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with the petitioner's drawing water from the said borewell and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.3357 of 2001 O R D E R: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in seizing the borewell belonging to the petitioner situated in Survey No.628 of Swargamvaripalle, Marella village, K.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor District as arbitrary and illegal, and to direct respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with the petitioner’s drawing water from the said bore well. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that on the basis of representations made by the villagers, the ﬁrst respondent had orally instructed the second respondent, who had seized and closed the petitioner’s bore well on 3-2-2000, purportedly on the ground that it was adversely affecting the drinking water bore well of the community, that her husband had made a representation to the ﬁrst respondent on 21.3.2000 contending that the operation of the bore well did not, in any way, aﬀect the bore well sunk by the Government under the Rural Water Supply Scheme for providing drinking water to the village, that the third respondent had visited the village on 17.4.2000 after giving prior intimation, and had conducted all the required tests by operating the community well as well as the bore well of the petitioner, and that it was evident that the community bore well functioned normally drawing full water without in any manner being aﬀected by the functioning of the bore well of the petitioner. Petitioner claims to have learnt that the third respondent had sent a report to the ﬁrst respondent on 9.5.2000 stating that the petitioner’s bore well did not aﬀect the functioning of the community bore well and, when the petitioner approached the second respondent, it was orally informed that, since the third respondent had sent a favourable report, she could operate the bore well and, accordingly, she resumed operations on 1.8.2000. Petitioner states that thereafter the second respondent came to the village on 23.2.2001 and forcibly seized the bore well and when they questioned this arbitrary action, he had replied that he had received instructions from the ﬁrst respondent to seize the bore well. Reference is placed by the petitioner on Section 3(2) of the A.P.Ground Water (Regulation for Drinking Water Purpose) Act, (Act 7 of 1996), (for short ‘the Act’), which prohibits any person from sinking any well for any purpose in the village in the vicinity of a public drinking water source within a distance of 200 mtrs, if it is a source with hand pump or open well and within a distance of 250 mtrs if the source is used with a power driven pump and, if the appropriate authority is satisﬁed that sinking of a bore well does not adversely aﬀect the public drinking water source, he can grant permission. Petitioner contends that their bore well was sunk much prior to the Act coming into force and that, under Section 4(1) of the Act, if the authority was of the view that the public drinking water source in any area of the District was likely to be adversely aﬀected he could declare such area to be a water scarce area. Petitioner would contend that no such order has been passed by the appropriate authority and that, permitting the neighbouring bore wells to resume operations, while seizing the bore well in the case of the petitioner, was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This court, by order in WPMP.No.4297 of 2001 in W.P.No.3357 of 2001, passed an interim order directing the ﬁrst and second respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s drawing water from their bore well situated in Survey No.628 of Swargamvaripale, Marella village, K.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor District pending further orders. When the writ petition was taken up for ﬁnal hearing, neither was the Government Pleader for Revenue present nor was there any representation on his behalf. No counter aﬃdavit has also been ﬁled on behalf of the respondents and as such the averments in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition remains uncontroverted. Since there is an interim order in force for the past more than seven years, ends of justice would be met if the said order is made the ﬁnal order in the writ petition, leaving it open to the respondents, in case the petitioner’s bore well in any manner aﬀects the drinking water source of the community of the village, to take action in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 5th November, 2008. PNV