M.Ramasamy, Aged 63 Years, v. State By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.12.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P.No.880 of 2018 M.Ramasamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1. State by Inspector of Police, Erumaipatti Police Station, Erumaipatti, Namakkal District.

2. Subramaniam

3. The Bolck Development Officer, Erumaipatti, Namakkal District.

... Respondents (R3 Suo-moto impleaded as a respondent as per order of this Hon'ble Court dated 05.03.2018 in Crl.O.P.No.880/2018) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the first respondent to provide police protection to the petitioner to live peacefully in his village and to draw water from his bore-well situated in Sruvey No.227/1C1, Gajakombai Village, Bodinaickanur Post, Senthamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District in a peaceful manner pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner dated 25.12.2017. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Damodaran For R1 : Mr.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.S.Senthil

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking for police protection to the petitioner to draw water from his borewell situated in Survey No.227/1C1, Gajakombai Village, Bodinaickanur Post, Senthamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District.

2. It is seen from records that earlier this petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.25026 of 2017 challenging the order passed by the Bolck Development Officer, Erumaipatti, Namakkal District and seeking for a direction to permit the petitioner to draw water in the bore-well in order to supply the same to Educational Institution and Industries free of cost. The second respondent in this criminal original petition, was the third respondent in the above said writ petition.

3. This Court considered the issue in detail and passed the following order:

"12. Though I agree with the contention of the petitioner that the water cannot be used for commercial purpose, under the guise of free cost, water cannot be converted into money. Unfortunately, now it has become a commercial product. This Court is of the view that taking into consideration of the total strength of the students and number of staff in the institution and strength of the labourers in the industries, supply of 45,000 litres of water on alternative days is enough. More than 45,000 litres is not required on alternative days, which is suffice as on date. However, this Courts makes it very clear that if there is depletion of water level, it is open to the 3rd respondent to supply or not to supply, on his own discretion.

13. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Divisional Engineer's permission is not required and the District Collector is the competent authority to pass orders. As to whether the Divisional Engineer is the competent authority to pass orders to permit drawl of water, is not gone into by this Court and the issue is left open and taking note of that water is essential for survival of all persons drawl of 45,000 litres is permitted for alternative days and PWD shall maintain the same."

4. From the above order it is clear that the petitioner was permitted to draw 45,000 litres of water on every alternative days for supply to the Educational

Institutions and other Industries. However, this Court made it clear that Public Works Department shall ensure that the petitioner does not draw more than 45,000 litres.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in respect of the order passed in the writ petition, the petitioner has not been permitted to draw water till today and the second respondent has been preventing the petitioner from drawing water from the bore-well. Therefore, this petitioner had given a complaint before the respondent police and since no action has been taken, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for appropriate direction.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent would submit that even though this Court has permitted to the petitioner to draw 45,000 litres of water from the bore-well on every alternative day, the petitioner cannot do it independently and the same needs to be monitored by the PWD. Therefore, learned counsel would further submit that if, after monitoring, any obstruction is made by the second respondent, the concerned authority can give a complaint to the police and appropriate action will be taken by the police at that point of time.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent would submit that there is water scarcity. The petitioner should not be permitted to draw water. The learned counsel would further submit that the main objection of the second respondent is that the petitioner cannot unilaterally draw water from the borewell without any authority monitoring the same. The second respondent has objected drawal of water only on that ground.

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side.

9. The fact remains that already an order has been passed in W.P.No.25026 of 2017, dated 22.11.2017, wherein this Court had permitted the petitioner to draw 45,000 litres of water on alternative days for the purpose of supplying it free of cost to the Educational Institutions and industries. However, this Court has also made it clear that the same should be monitored by Public Works Department. This Court did not specifically name the officer who has to monitor. In view of the fact that the second respondent is resisting the drawl of water on the

ground that there is a scarcity of water, the respondent police is finding it difficult to give police protection to the petitioner.

10. In order to strike a via media and in order to ensure that the petitioner does not draw more than 45,000 litres water on alternative days, as directed by the Court in the writ petition, the same can be monitored by the Block Development Officer, Erumaipatti, Namakkal District, who has already been impleaded as the third respondent in this criminal original petition. He has to ensure that the petitioner does not cross the line and thereby take advantage of the order passed in the writ petition.

11. In the result, this criminal original petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent namely the Block Development Officer, Erumaipatti, Namakkal District to monitor the drawal of water by the petitioner from the bore-well and ensure that the petitioner does not draw more than 45,000 litres on alternative days as directed by this Court in W.P.No.25026 of 2017, which the petitioner is supplying free of cost to the Educational Institutions and to the Industries. This Court itself has made it clear in the writ petition that water cannot be converted into a commercial commodity. Therefore, it does not require reiteration in this criminal original petition. If there is any resistance from any quarters, at that time, the respondent police shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar dss To

1. The Inspector of Police, Erumaipatti Police Station, Erumaipatti, Namakkal District.

2. The Bolck Development Officer, Erumaipatti, Namakkal District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

+1cc to Mr.A.Damodaran , Advocate SR.No. 84360 Crl.O.P.No.880 of 2018 ASK(11/12/2018)