Borewell drilling in a safe zone for public water supply cannot be restrained by mandamus.

The petitioners, residents of villages in and around Alapiranthan Village, challenged the proposal of the Aranthangi Municipality to drill and exploit borewells in Survey Nos. 381 and 228 in the South Vellar River area, alleging that the agricultural lands of the surrounding villages depended on irrigation from tanks and the South Vellar River.

The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution sought a mandamus restraining the sixth respondent, the Commissioner of Aranthangi Municipality, from drilling ten borewells; the affidavit referred to a proposal for fifteen borewells.

An interim injunction was initially granted, but a Coordinate Division Bench vacated it on 16 July 2024 after noting that the proposed extraction was in a “safe zone,” where groundwater extraction was below 70%, and that the project was intended to provide drinking water to Aranthangi residents.

During the proceedings, the petitioners also relied on the statement of the Superintending Engineer that a check dam with recharge shafts could be constructed across the South Vellar River to improve groundwater levels.

1. Whether the High Court should restrain the Aranthangi Municipality from drilling and exploiting borewells in Survey Nos. 381 and 228 of the South Vellar River area at Alapiranthan Village.

2. Whether the statement of the Superintending Engineer regarding the possible construction of a check dam with recharge shafts created a binding obligation on the respondents to undertake that project.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in considering the petition for a writ of mandamus.

A mandamus will not ordinarily issue to restrain a public authority from implementing a public drinking-water project where the material before the Court indicates that groundwater extraction is within a classified safe zone and the project serves a public purpose.

The Court further held that an official statement expressing an opinion or possibility regarding a future project does not constitute a binding commitment unless supported by the requisite administrative sanction, budgetary allocation, and contractual or implementation process.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was relied upon in the order.

The Court treated the Coordinate Bench’s decision to vacate the interim injunction as significant.

That decision had accepted that the proposed borewells were located in a safe groundwater zone, with extraction below 70%, and were intended to supply drinking water to the local population.

In those circumstances, the Court found no basis to issue a final mandamus prohibiting the Municipality from drilling the borewells.

The Court separately considered the petitioners’ reliance on the Superintending Engineer’s reference to a check dam with recharge shafts.

It held that the reference was only an opinion or proposal and was conditional upon administrative approval, budgetary sanction, and the award of a contract; therefore, it could not be treated as an enforceable promise or binding undertaking against the respondents.

It also clarified that the Superintending Engineer’s statement regarding a possible check dam did not amount to a binding commitment.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.