IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 24330 of 2004 Between: 1 Rig Owners Association, A.P., 24-60-6, IDA, Uppal, Hyderabad, rep., by its General Secretary P. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, S/o P. Parvatha Reddy and another. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development and others. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. GOVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PANCHAYATRAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 24330 of 2004 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in introducing (a) sub-Section 3 to Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land & Trees (Amendment) Act, 2004, (b) sub- rule (1)(ii) to rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land & Trees Rules, 2004 and (c) sub-section (1)(i) to Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land & Trees Act, 2002 and Rule 27(1)(I) of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land & Trees Rules, 2004. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the petitioner-association is operating rigs for digging up bore wells at the selected site and that the introduction of sub-Section (3) of Section 14 of the said Act, imposes heavy burden on all the rig owners and operators as it directs them to obtain a feasibility certificate from the Government or from an expert registered with the Government regarding availability of water in the selected site. The Act also does not specify by whom the expenditure for obtaining feasibility certificate, should be born. The action of the respondents is not intended to safeguard the right to trade and right to equality and it would defeat the primary object of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land & Trees Act, 2002. On the other hand, the respondents filed a counter-affidavit contending that the Government of A.P. has introduced AP Water Land and Trees (Act 10) of 2002 with an object of promoting water conservation and regulating the exploitation & use of surface and ground water. Subsequently, on noticing that due to failure of bore wells, the amount incurred by the farmer for digging of new bore wells became waste, thereby increasing the misery of the farmers, the Government decided to make provisions for feasibility study and insurance of new bore wells and accordingly, the Act was amended. According to the new provisions, the burden of obtaining the feasibility certificate lies with the Mandal Authority under AP WALTA, while insurance premium has to be paid by the applicant. It is also contended that the Government has taken measures for the welfare of the farmers and that under the single window approach, the application for permission to new bore wells is processed and on receipt of the application from the farmer, the Mandal Authority obtains APTRANSCO feasibility report and the ground water feasibility from the Ground Water Department and insures the well. Before issuing permission, the applicant has to pay the prescribed amount through DD towards insurance premium in respect of agricultural wells and the Government is in advance stage of taking master policy on the insurance for failed bore well for which insurance premium will be reimbursed by the applicant. There is absolutely no burden on the Rig Owners and the Act has been brought to protect the Ground Water resources and the farmers. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners assails the validity of the Act contending that the legislature has imposed unreasonable restrictions and because of this, the liberty of business is likely to be affected under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the amended provision of sub section 3 to section 14 of the Act is null and void. In this regard, the legal proposition relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the decision of the Apex Court reported in B.P. Sharma Vs. Union of India and others[1] will not lend any support to the case of the petitioners. Before going to deal with the case, it is relevant to mention the provisions, which are mainly challenged in this writ petition: Section 14(3) of the Act was added viz.,: “In respect of agricultural lands for irrigation purpose every rig owner or operator shall obtain a feasibility certificate regarding availability of water in the selected site from the Ground Water Department or from the experts registered with the Ground Water Department. The rig owner or operator shall also insure the proposed bore well before taking up of the drilling work so that no financial burden falls on the farmer in the case of failure of water in the bore well. Rule 13(1)(i) of the AP Water, Land & Trees Rules, 2004 : Any person or institution desiring to dig new well of any kind in their premises should obtain permission by submitting to the authority having jurisdiction over the area, an application in Form 2 and 5 as the case may be appended to these rules together with a fee as fixed by the authority from time to time. Application duly filled in can also be given to concerned village Secretary who shall pass it on to mandal authority within two days. The Authority shall process the application with the help of Designated Officer. The Designated Officer after examining the application shall satisfy himself about the compliance of the various provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and give his recommendation to the Authority and the said Authority shall dispose off the application within fifteen days of receipt of the application. The Designated Officer while giving recommendation shall comply with the relevant provisions of the Act. Wherever necessary, the District Authority shall take the opinion of the Technical Officer of that area. Every order for permission shall be in Form 3 and 6 as the case may be appended to these rules: (ii) The mandal authority on receipt of application for drilling new wells in form 2 and 5 as the case may be will refer the matter simultaneously for feasibility certificate and for power supply to respective agencies in the mandal authority and obtain the required information and dispose of the application on the basis of the reports from Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (APTRANSCO) and the Ground Water department within 2 weeks. It is the responsibility of officials of APTRANSCO and Ground Water department to submit their reports to mandal authority in prescribed time. Single Window approach is followed to help the people.” The objects and reasons of the Act is that due to the failure of the bore wells, the amounts incurred by the farmers become wasted thereby increasing the misery of the farmers and therefore, it has been decided to make a provision for getting the insurance coverage for the operation of digging of bore wells so as to ensure that the farmers do not suffer financial loss in case of failure of the bore wells. The provision itself makes it clear that the very intention of the legislature in making this provision is to ensure that the farmers shall not suffer financial loss in case of failure of bore wells and therefore, it can be said that the same does not amount to any restriction or violation of any fundamental rights. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in these provisions as they would not impose any burden on the rig owners. Hence, the approach of the rig owners does not appear to be a bonafide one and thereby, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed _____________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Dated: 18.8.2009 Gurc THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO :24330 of 2004 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 18th August, 2009 [1] AIR 2003 SC 3863