Unauthorized construction in water bodies cannot be permitted and must be removed to preserve public resources.

The Petitioner, a company formerly known as Bhatia Coke And Energy Ltd., challenged a notice dated 10.11.2025 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department (Respondent No. 3) for the removal of an encroachment

The Petitioner had applied for a "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) to construct a bridge over a water body in Survey No. 369/1, Ketnamallee Village, for private ingress and egress

the Respondents contended that the Petitioner constructed the bridge without obtaining prior permission, leading to an enforcement action where the unauthorized structure was subsequently removed by the authorities

1. Whether the impugned notice for removal of encroachment/unauthorized construction in the water body was legally sustainable given the removal of the structure during the pendency of the petition

2. Whether the authorities are obligated to permit private construction or ingress/egress over a protected water body

The Court emphasized the public trust doctrine and the statutory duty of authorities to protect water bodies.

It held that authorities must remain vigilant in protecting water bodies and that no unauthorized construction can be permitted under any circumstances

The core legal principle applied is that water bodies must be preserved for the benefit of the general public, overriding private commercial interests or convenience

The Court observed that since the unauthorized bridge had already been removed by the competent authorities, the challenge to the initial notice had become "irrelevant"

Addressing the Petitioner’s pending application for an NOC, the Court reasoned that the preservation of water bodies for public benefit is a paramount duty of the State. It determined that the Petitioner’s act of building a bridge without prior permission constituted a clear encroachment.

The Court further noted that once a water body is involved, the authorities cannot grant permissions that compromise the integrity of the ecosystem for private use

The Court answered the issues by affirming that unauthorized constructions in water bodies cannot be permitted and directed the official respondents to identify and remove any other existing encroachments in the water body following due process of law

No costs were awarded