THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.12669 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by two individuals seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action on the part of Respondents 1 to 5 in not taking steps to see that the 6th respondent does not draw flowing water from river Godavari throughout the year as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently, to direct respondents 1 to 5 to take steps that the 6th respondent does not draw flowing water from the river at any time during the year. The petitioners claim that they are residents of Negieneniprolu Reddypalem and Irivendi Villages in Khammam District and these villages are situate on the banks of river Godavari and the water in river Godavari is the lifeline for the villagers as it supplies water for irrigation and also for drinking purposes both for the humans and animals, but however, the 6th respondent has been allowed to draw flowing water from river Godavari throughout the year for its industrial purposes and consequently, the flow of waters downstream are greatly impaired, thus, affecting the quality of living of the petitioners and several others. It is contended that the State Government has accorded permission to the 6th respondent to draw 15 Million Gallons of water per day (MGPD) from the river Godavari subject to 15 conditions specified therein and respondents 1 to 5 have been adopting a soft attitude towards the 6th respondent as it is a giant company and consequently, the 6th respondent has been drawing water from river Godavari in utter disregard of the requirements of the downstream villagers. Hence, they instituted this writ petition. The respondents have controverted and contested the various averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. They challenged the bona fides of the petitioners in instituting this writ petition and also the fact that without challenging directly the grant made by the Government, the same relief is sought in an indirect manner. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Irrigation and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Sridhar, learned counsel for the 6th respondent industry. The significance of river Godavari and its impact on the way of living of various persons, in particular, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, need not be traced for deciding this case. River Godavari is one of the most important rivers in the supply chain of lifeline of our country. The State Government, with a view to secure development of the industrially backward areas, keeps evolving various policy measures for attracting investments from the industrial entrepreneurs. It is hardly in doubt that industrial establishments bring along with them lot of developmental activities. They provide for both direct and indirect employment in large numbers. The commerce and trade in the area around and the ancillary industries will also flourish. But, it is also a fact that industries bring in lot of vows. Apart from the pollution, which they tend to cause generally to the environment, the industries try to consume the natural resources or, at least, make a heavy demand on consumption of such natural resources. Water is one such precious resource. The 6th respondent is not only a manpower intensive industry, but it also makes a heavy demand on water for its day to day industrial and residential activity. Without availability of huge quantities of water, such an industry cannot run or survive. Therefore, to ensure that there will be sustainable development of locality, the State Government has offered a grant in favour of the 6th respondent and passed orders to that effect through their G.O.Ms.No.503, Irrigation & Power (IRR.IV) Department, dated 26-06- 1976, according permission to draw 15 MGPD water from river Godavari subject to 15 conditions laid down therein. Importantly, the State Government has ordered that untreated effluents will not be permitted to be let into the river by the 6th respondent and the opinion of the Executive Engineer as to whether the treated effluents are fit to be let into the river or not, is made final. It is also made clear that the pumping installations should be put up well above the flood zone and water meters should be installed at the cost of the 6th respondent industry both for the intake and surplus water let out and the measurements thereof shall be reported to the department every month. The officers of the Public Works Department (Irrigation), as the department was known then, were conferred the right to enter upon the premises of the industry at any time for checking the intake, drawl, circulation, usage and letting out of surplus water, treatment of the effluents, etcetera. It was also further indicated that the 6th respondent industry cannot make a claim for supply of water if adequate water is not available in river Godavari and shall make their own arrangements alternatively for securing water at their own cost. No cross bund or obstruction should be placed across the natural flow of water. Further, subsoil water shall not be permitted to be drawn during any period without the written permission from the Executive Engineer. Condition No.13 acquires some significance, as, much of an argument has been generated there around. Hence, I consider it appropriate to extract the same and it reads as follows: “13. The owners of the industry should make their own arrangements to the extent necessary at their own cost as there may be difficulty to supply water between the periods of 15th April to 15th June.” It was made clear in the grant that any violation of the above conditions will entitle the Government to cancel the permission accorded. From a perusal of the conditions incorporated in the grant through G.O.Ms.No.503, Irrigation & Power (IRR.IV) Department, dated 26-06-1976, according to the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, the 6th respondent industry cannot draw subsoil water and hence, water can only be drawn from the flowing river. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the 6th respondent would also submit that drawing water from the subsoil or the river bed will cause, possibly, some impact upon the ground water resources, where as if water is drawn from the flow of the river, no such impediment would be caused to the subsoil or underground water table. I am in complete agreement with the submissions of the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and the learned senior counsel in this regard. Advisedly, the State Government has permitted the 6th respondent to draw water only from the flow of the river, consequently, the 6th respondent cannot sink any well through subsoil or riverbed for drawing waters. That might have a possible impact upon the ground water table. On the other hand, if water is drawn from the flow of the river, no such subsoil water table impairment can take place. Further, to draw water from the flow of the river, adequate and appropriate quantity of water should be flowing in the river. Therefore, I have no hesitation to reject the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 6th respondent should be prevented from drawing water from the flow of the river Godavari. The learned counsel for the petitioners has laid much stress on Condition No.13 of the grant, in support of his contention that the 6th respondent shall not draw water at all from river Godavari between 15th April and 15th June and contrary thereto, the 6th respondent has been drawing water, as a result of which, the water flow of the river downstream is badly affected. The learned counsel would contend that the period between 15th April and 15th June is considered to be a dry spell in Andhra Pradesh and consequently, there will be minimal water flow in the rivers and during this period, if the 6th respondent were to be permitted to draw water from river Godavari, the residents of the villages on either side of the banks of river Godavari would be impacted. The learned counsel Sri K.S. Murthy would contend that Condition No.13 of the grant should be read as a mandatory provision and the 6th respondent shall be prevented from drawing water from the river during this period. While I remind myself that an order passed by the State Government cannot be read in the same manner as a provision of a statute is read normally. Nonetheless, the language employed in Condition No.13 of the grant does not suggest that it is intended to be a mandatory provision, inasmuch as the words used therein viz “to the extent necessary” and “as there may be difficulty to supply water”, appear to be more precautionary and tentative rather than mandatory. During the dry spell or summer season, as we may call it, there will be minimal flow of waters in the rivers. The needs of those, who reside in various villages on either side of the banks of the river, should be catered on a priority basis. For the State, a demand to make available water for the large sections of the humanity residing on either bank of the river, is of paramount consideration than its obligation to make available water to an industry during such summer season or dry spell. Therefore, while making the grant, the State has made sure that the 6th respondent will not mistake or misunderstand the terms of the grant and insist upon the State to make available 15 MGPD of water every day irrespective of the depleted water levels in the river during the summer season. Therefore, Condition No.13 of the grant left adequate discretion for the State and preserved a right in it not to supply water to the 6th respondent in the period between 15th April and 15th June, if such a situation is warranted. In other words, depending upon the availability of the water in the river and also keeping an eye on the requirements of water for the residents of the various villages situate on either banks of the river, the exercise of supply of water to the 6th respondent can be regulated. Therefore, I am not in a position to agree with the contention of Sri K.S. Murthy that in the period 15th April and 15th June, the 6th respondent shall not draw water from the river Godavari at all. On the other hand, a proper way of understanding of Condition No.13, to my mind, is that there shall be an assessment made on regular basis about the quantum of water available in the river during the season between 15th April and 15th June and only upon a proper assessment of the quantum of water required downstream the offtake point of the 6th respondent, the 6th respondent should be permitted to draw water from the river. If, in the opinion of respondents 1 to 5, the flow of water between 15th April and 15th June in the river Godavari is not sufficient enough to allow the 6th respondent to draw 15 MGPD of water, they can pass an order preventing the 6th respondent from drawing water from the river Godavari during that season and ask it to feed for itself. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri K.S.Murthy is right that the discretion vested in the authorities must be exercised carefully and properly. It cannot be left to an arbitrary decision or lack of complete control of the relevant parameters by the respondents. As was already noticed supra, it was the requirement of the downstream villagers, which is of paramount consideration for the State rather than the requirement of the 6th respondent to draw upon the river water. Therefore, respondents 1 to 5 will ensure that a proper and careful study is made regularly and periodically and only when they are satisfied that there is adequate quantum of water available in river Godavari, they would permit the 6th respondent to draw water from river Godavari between 15th April and 15th June. If, in the opinion of respondents 1 to 5, availability of water does not permit them to allow the 6th respondent to draw 15 MGPD of water, they would accordingly regulate the grant. It will also be important to notice, in this context, the data made available by the 5th respondent in the counter affidavit filed by him in the matter. In para 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the offtake point of water from the 6th respondent is about 3 kilometers by the upstream of Central Water Commission Gauge located at Bhadrachalam. It is, further, submitted that after 15th April 2011, the minimum yield available in river Godavari at Bhadrhachalam i.e., on the downstream point of drawal as per the records of the Central Water Commission is 25 Cumecs (i.e., 475 MGPD). This was the information recorded and available with the Gauge records of the Central Water Commission on 15-05-2011. Further, a highest yield was recorded on 28-04-2011 at the same point as 66 Cumecs (i.e., 1253 MGPD). No doubt these gauze records, which are maintained by the Central Water Commission disclose that there is lot of water available in river Godavari during this year’s summer season. The information available in the gauge records of the Central Water Commissioner lends support to the assertion of the respondents, no doubt, that drawal of 15 PGPD of water by the 6th respondent even during the summer season from river Godavari is not adversely affecting the flow of river waters downstream. But however, it should also be remembered that a proper and careful study of the availability of river water should be continued. Such record should also be maintained not only for the period between 15th April and 15th June, but also for the period preceding the same. Based upon the recorded gauge of water flow, appropriate decision should always be taken by the respondents as to whether the 6th respondent should be permitted to draw water or not. It is also sought to be projected in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent that approximately 1800 MGPD of water from river Godavari is let out at Sir Arthur Cotton Barrage situate at Dowaleswaram in East Godavari, to confluence with the sea further downstream. But the fact remains that after river Godavari passes through Bhadrachalam tracts, one of its main tributaries, namely, Sabari, joins it at Kunavaram. In fact, river Sabari contributes much of the water flow of river Godavari from Kunavaram onwards. The 5th respondent, on the basis of the gauging data made available by the Central Water Commission, submits that an occasion has not arisen for restricting the 6th respondent from drawing water between 15th April and 15th June. As was already observed supra, such an exercise invariably be conducted each year and based upon the available data, appropriate decision should be taken in the matter. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 6th respondent submits that the petitioners have sought for a relief in the writ petition without mounting any challenge to the grant made by the State Government through their G.O.Ms.No.503, Irrigation & Power (IRR.IV) Department, dated 26-06-1976. It is true that there is no serious challenge made to the grant made by the State Government in the writ petition, but the fact remains that the two petitioners have a genuine interest in the matter. They made their position very clear, in that, they are not opposed to the 6th respondent drawing water from river Godavari, but they have only opposed the indiscriminate drawal of water. The concern of the petitioner, I am not willing to observe as a motivated concern. I do not wish to make any further observations in this regard except noticing that every concerned person, who worships rivers in this country as symbolic of primary sources of life, can get up and object to indiscriminate usage of river waters, particularly, by industrialists. Sri K.S. Murthy, based upon the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, submitted that water meters are not installed by the 6th respondent and consequently, there is no way that respondents 1 to 5 will be knowing as to the quantum of water that is drawn by the 6th respondent day in and day out. However, the 5th respondent has gone on record in his counter affidavit that water meters are installed by the 6th respondent. The information secured by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, under the Right to Information Act, which I had carefully perused, discloses that water meters were not established at the pump house point. The learned senior counsel Sri Vedula Venkataramana has placed before me today, in support and proof of his contention that water meters are established by the 6th respondent, material, which disloses as to the quantum of water drawn by the 6th respondent for the past few years and as to how charges based upon the same, have been paid into the Government Treasury by them. Insofar as installation of water meters are concerned, if they are established at the entry point of the consumer, they will certainly record the inflow of water into the premises of the consumer. Therefore, in the absence of a specific condition in the grant that the water meters should be established at the point of intake at pump house, I am not willing to find fault with the 6th respondent in establishing the water meters at the entry point into its factory premises. It is appropriate to remember that Condition No.7 of the grant, while directing the 6th respondent to install water meters at its own cost, made it clear that the measurements must be reported to the department every month by the 6th respondent and the officers of the Public Works Department (Irrigation) have been granted express permission to enter upon the premises of the 6th respondent’s industry at any time for checking the intake, drawl, circulation, usage and letting out of surplus water as well as treated effluents, etcetera. Therefore, when Condition Nos.7 and 9 are read together, it is wholly permissible for the 6th respondent to establish the water meters at the entry point into its factory premises. So long as the periodical inspections are undertaken by the officials of the Irrigation Department, no foul play need be suspected in the matter of recording by the 6th respondent. It is certainly open to an officer not less than the rank of an Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department to undertake the inspection, at least, twice a year to ensure that the water meters installed by the 6th respondent are functioning properly and that they are recording the intake of water properly. Such safeguard will put at rest any apprehension as to whether the drawal of water is properly regulated or not. I place on record my sincere appreciation for the quality assistance rendered in the matter by Sri K.S. Murthy, the learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Revenue and Irrigation and Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the 6th respondent. This writ petition is, therefore, otherwise found merit less and hence, it is dismissed, but however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 12th October 2011