Industrial water entitlement during scarcity requires reasoned determination after hearing the consumer.

The petitioner had entered into a five-year agreement with the State for drawing water from the Tungabhadra Reservoir for industrial use.

On 30 September 2026, respondent No. 4 directed the petitioner to stop drawing water.

The petitioner challenged that direction, relying on the agreement and its information about reservoir levels; the respondents relied on water scarcity and competing public requirements.

1. Whether the direction requiring the petitioner to stop drawing water could stand when the agreement permitted supply subject to reservoir levels and other conditions, and the competent authority had not made a reasoned decision on the petitioner’s entitlement.

2. Whether the petitioner’s entitlement to draw water should be determined by the Chief Engineer after considering water availability and competing requirements, with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The Court considered Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which it was asked to review the impugned administrative communication.

Clause III(17) permitted drawing water only while the reservoir level remained above 1,575 feet; Clause IV(5) made supply subject to the availability of water for drinking and irrigation requirements and excluded compensation claims for non-supply; and Clause IV(22) empowered the department to withdraw permission in case of shortage.

The Court required the competent authority to make a reasoned decision on entitlement after considering water availability and demand, and to provide the petitioner a personal hearing.

The agreement did not confer an unconditional right to water: the petitioner’s entitlement was subject to the reservoir-level condition and the priority of drinking and irrigation needs.

The material before the Court included differing information on reservoir levels and inflow and outflow, while the communications showed that the question of industrial allocation remained undecided by the Chief Engineer.

In those circumstances, the Court referred the entitlement question to the Chief Engineer for a reasoned determination based on water availability and demand, after hearing the petitioner, rather than itself deciding whether water should be supplied.

The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Chief Engineer to decide the petitioner’s entitlement under the agreement, provide a personal hearing, and communicate a reasoned decision within ten days of receiving a certified copy of the order.