Authorities Cannot Take Precipitative Action While a Groundwater Permission Application Is Pending

The petitioner, an agriculturalist, stated that he drew water from a borewell on his land and supplied it free of cost to nearby schools and hospitals.

Although he had obtained electricity for commercial purposes, he denied using the water commercially.

He challenged communications and orders issued by the Tahsildar, Village Accountant and Senior Geologist, alleging that the Station House Officer threatened criminal prosecution in connection with the water supply.

Relying on orders in connected writ petitions, in which similar communications had been quashed and petitioners were directed to seek permission from the Karnataka Groundwater Authority, he sought similar relief.

The State agreed that he could be permitted to approach the Authority for permission.

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to apply to the Karnataka Groundwater Authority for permission to draw, transport and supply borewell water to specified institutions.

2. Whether the Court should quash the challenged communications and orders, or grant interim protection against precipitative action while the Authority considers the petitioner’s application.

The Karnataka Ground Water (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Act, 2011 provides for regulation of groundwater and, as described in the judgment, requires a person intending to draw and transport water to obtain permission from the Karnataka Groundwater Authority.

The Court also relied on its earlier orders in connected writ petitions, where similar communications and orders had been quashed and the petitioners had undertaken to approach the Authority; those orders were treated as grounds for permitting this petitioner to seek permission as well.

The Court noted that the same communications and orders had already been quashed in the connected writ petitions, so it was unnecessary to quash them again in this case.

Given the statutory requirement to obtain permission and the State’s position, the Court permitted the petitioner to apply to the Groundwater Authority for the limited purpose of supplying water to schools, colleges, other educational institutions and hospitals.

To preserve the position while the application was considered, the Court directed that respondents 3 to 7 take no precipitative action, including registering an FIR, during that period.

The petitioner was permitted to submit an application, enclosing the order and the earlier connected orders, for permission to draw, transport and supply water for the specified institutional purposes.

The Authority was directed to decide the application within two months of receiving a copy of the order.

Until consideration of the application, respondents 3 to 7 were restrained from taking precipitative action against the petitioner, including registering an FIR.