WP(C) 3210/2007 BEFORE HON’BLR MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. B. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Cham aria, learned Standing Counsel, G.M.C. I have also heard Ms R. Chakraborty, lear ned State counsel. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to issue Trade License to the petitioner for supply of drin king water to the people of Guwahati city. According to the petitioner, she has installed deep tube well in her plot of land situated at Uzanbazar, Guwahati. The deep tube well has been installed for providing drinking water to the public . After such installation, she prayed for Trade License to the authorities of t he G.M.C. The Trade License was prayed for in the name and style of M/S Amrit Ja l. 3. In Para-7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has named two other units namely, (i) M/S Bhumi Jal and (ii) M/S Ganga Jal, which according to the petit ioner, have been operating in Guwahati. However, later on, the authorities of th e G.M.C. temporarily suspended delivery of drinking water by the said two units. Consequently, all the three units including that of the petitioner, approached the authorities of the G.M.C. for withdrawal of temporary suspension and to all ow them to supply drinking water. 4. It appears that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by Anne xure-2 notice dated 5.4.2007 as to why action should not be taken against it for supply of drinking water without any valid license and authority of the G.M.C. 5. In response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted her reply by her application dated 18.4.2007 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) praying for issuing license immediately. However, in her reply, she did not deal with the objection raised relating to supply of drinking water without any valid license. The petiioner has annexed Annexure-5A public representation to the writ petiti on communicating ’no objection’ to the Commissioner of G.M.C. towards supply of drinking water by the petitioner in the name and style of M/S Amrit Jal. In Par a-11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated thus :- 11. That the petitioners beg to state that in Guwahati city M/S Bhumi Jal an d M/S Ganga Hjal supply drinking water from their deep tube wells situated in Uz angbazar and these two units are allowed to supply drinking water by the GMC au thority by issuing trade license. But M/S Amrit Jal (the petitioner’s unit) whic h is also situated in Uzanbazar is not granted trade license by the GMC authorit y although petitioners applied for trade license on 23.02.2007 on extraneous con sideration. The petitioners have appeared before the GMC authority on several o ccasions and every time the authority verbally assured the petitioners that trad e license will be issued shortly but till today the authority has not taken any steps in this regard. 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, the statements made in the writ petition in various paragraphs have not been dealt with indepe ndently. However, it has been stated that the petitioner has operated her unit without obtaining trade license from the Corporation. It has been admitted that the present infrastructure of the G.M.C. is not adequate to supply sufficient d rinking water. In Para-5 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the people of Guwahati are facing acute water crisis due to the mushroom installation of de ep tube well in an unplanned manner. Referring to the proceedings in P.I.L. No. 65/2005, presently pending before the Division Bench of this Court, it has been stated in the affidavit that the regulatory measures towards installation of dee p tube wells are required to be taken. It has also been stated that having regar d to the order passed in the said proceeding, the Corporation has restrained it self from issuing the trade license. It has further been stated that the Corpo ration is awaiting the guidelines from the State Government on the subject matte r and that the matter would be dealt with in future appropriately upon receipt o f instructions from the State Government. 7. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is no specific denial to the statements made in Para-11 of the writ petition, t he case of the petitioner should be considered and treated at par with the othe r two agencies namely, M/S Bhumi Jal and M/S Ganga Jal. On the other hand, Mr. Chamaria, learned Standing Counsel, G.M.C. submits that the said two agencies ha ve not been permitted to extract water from deep tube wells but have only been p ermitted to supply water. He further submits that such permission to supply wate r does not necessarily mean extraction of water through deep tube wells. Ms R. C hakraborty, learned State counsel submits that the matter relating to issuance of necessary guidelines is under active consideration of the State Government. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties as well as the materials available on record. The Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 7.5.2007 passed in the aforesaid proceeding i.e. PIL N o.65/2005 has observed thus :- In so far as availability of water to private suppliers who sell the same to va rious households is concerned, Sri Samaria, on instructions received, has submit ted that some trade licence have been granted by the Corporation to extract grou nd water and that on public complaints such trade licences are presently in the process of review. The source from which such private suppliers of water obtain the same is, however, not clear though it is possible that such suppliers may be obtaining their requirements from deep tube wells itself. Sri Samaria as well a s Smt. Hazarika, on instructions received, have further submitted that in some c ases deep tube wells are being dug upto a level of 900 ft. beyond ground level a nd the cost incurred in such an exercise is huge and exorbitant which may be to the tune of several lakhs of rupees. Both the learned counsels have submitted th at neither the GMC nor the GMDA are granting permissions or regulating the const ruction/boring of the deep tube wells though under the GMDA Regulations now in f orce it is contemplated that such exercises will the regulated separately by the authority of the GMDA or the State Government. From the above it is crystal clear that as on date there is no agency regulating the exercise of construction/boring of deep tube wells in the City of Guwahati. What must also be noticed, at this stage, is the affidavit filed on behalf of t he Central Ground Water Board in the present proceeding wherein it has been stat ed that the GMC is not declared as a notified area by the Central Ground Water Authority for any regulation of ground water withdrawal . Indiscriminate construction/boring of deep tube wells in the City of Guwahati ma y have serious adverse effects on the vast majority of the citizens who are neit her supplied with any Municipal water nor can afford to incur the cost of boring a deep tube well in the event the ring wells, which is their only source of wat er supply, is to get dried up consequent to the construction/boring of deep tube wells. In such circumstances, we are of the view that notice should be issued t o the State Government to show cause as to why it should not be directed, in pub lic interest, to frame appropriate Regulations to control/regulate the construct ion/boring of deep tube wells in the City of Guwahati and pending the framing of such Regulations to put some kind of restraint on further construction/boring o f such deep tube wells. The Central Ground Water Board shall also file a further affidavit indicating th e reasons why the area under the GMC has not been declared as a notified area by it. The said Body will also lay before the Court all such Regulations on ground water withdrawal, as may be in force, at present. In the said affidavit the Boa rd will also lay before the Court the correctness of the stand of the petitioner s that indiscriminate boring of deep tube wells have the effect of lowering the levels of ground water of the existing ring wells. 9. From the aforesaid observation made by the Division Bench of this Court, it is seen that the Court has expressed its concern regarding indiscriminate co nstruction/boring of deep tube wells in Guwahati which may have serious adverse effect on the vast majority of the citizens. The Division Bench has also notice d that neither the G.M.C. nor the G.M.D.A. are granting permissions or regulatin g the construction/boring of the deep tube wells though under the G.M.D.A. Regu lation now in force, it is contemplated that those exercises will be regulated s eparately by the authority of the GMDA or the State Government. In the said orde r, restraint has also been put on further construction/boring of such deep tube wells. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the said pro ceeding is still pending. 10. The respondents are the best judge to decide as to what would be the eff ect of allowing any party to extract water through deep tube wells for the purpo se of supply of drinking water. In the proceeding before the Division Bench, sub mission was made that neither G.M.C. nor G.M.D.A. were granting permissions or r egulating the construction/boring of deep tube wells. It was noticed by the Divi sion Bench that the G.M.D.A. Regulation now in force, contemplate that such exer cises are to be regulated separately by the authority of the G.M.D.A. or the Sta te Government. 11. In view of the above, while not issuing any Mandamus to the authorities of the G.M.C. to issue trade license to the petitioner for the purpose of suppl y of drinking water (’Amrit Jal’) by way of extracting water through deep tube w ells installed in her land situated at Uzanbazar, Guwahati, this writ petition i s disposed of with a direction to the respondents to deal with the case of the petitioner appropriately at par with M/S Bhumi Jal and M/S Ganga Jal and also ta king into account the aforesaid proceeding in PIL No.65/2005 and the orders pass ed therein. The entire exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously as possib le preferably within 31st March, 2008. 12. Writ petition is disposed of.