SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2020

Page 1 Saturday, September 26, 2020

Printed For: Srijana Bahadur, Jamia Millia Islamia
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

PIL No. 43 of 2019

Elangbam Amujao Singh v. State of Manipur

2019 SCC OnLine Mani 228

In the High Court of Manipur at Imphal

(BEFORE RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR, C.J. AND LANUNGSUNGKUM JAMIR, J.)

Elangbam Amujao Singh .…. Petitioner;

v.
State of Manipur through Chief Secretary, Manipur, of Government
and Others .…. Respondents.
PIL No. 43 of 2019
Decided on October 14, 2019
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Shri E. Premjit, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. N. Kumarjit, AG
The Order of the Court was delivered by
RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR, C.J. (Oral):— Heard Mr. E. Premjit Sinhg, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur for the State
respondents.
2. The prayers in this PIL are as follows:—
“a) Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondents
to implement various water supply projects in the state including Jal Jeevan
Mission of the Jal Shakti Ministry within a fixed time frame;
b) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
-AND-
IN THE INTERIM
a) Direct the Respondents to submit the status report with regard to the
followings:
i. How much amount has been sanctioned for the project?
ii. When was the amount sanctioned?
iii. If so sanctioned, when was the amount received?
iv. How much of money has been spent till now out of the sanctioned amount?
v. When was the project started?
vi. How much time period is required to complete the project?
vii. How many staffs are required to execute such project?
viii. How many experience Engineers having Master Degree holder in PHE is
required for the said project?
ix. How many such Engineers are available in the Department?
x. Whether is it possible to execute/implement such big project by the
existing Engineers of the Department?
xi. By which Department, the project is to be executed?
xii. Has any timeframe be drawn to complete the project?
xiii. If so, by which date, the project is stipulated to be completed?
xiv. Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
 SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2020
Page 2 Saturday, September 26, 2020
Printed For: Srijana Bahadur, Jamia Millia Islamia
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. This PIL is based on a report in the press stating that while inaugurating
Waithoupat Water supply scheme, no time frame has been indicated for implementing
the water supply scheme under the Jal Jeevan Mission of the Jal Shakti Ministry. The
petitioner relies upon a media news to state that a huge amount has been given in
grant-in-aid with 90% Central share and 10% State share to improve the drinking
water supply schemes in the State of Manipur. The petitioner also relies upon one
project inaugurated by the Chief Minister of Manipur, namely, Thoubal Waithoupat
water supply scheme. The news report on the inauguration of Waithoupat Water
supply scheme speaks about implementing the Jal Jeevan Mission of the Jal Shakti
Ministry by the State Government based on a detailed project report for about Rs.
2600 crores. It is stated that New Development Bank approved and sanctioned the
amount for executing the Jal Jeevan Mission schemes. While it is so, the petitioner
states that the implementation of the Jal Jeevan Mission would not be effective
because no specific timeline has been given for completion of the projects. Secondly,
there are vacancies in the post of Chief Engineer, Superintendent Engineer and
Engineers at various levels and unless and until experienced and competent engineers
are appointed at the grassroots level, the execution of this Jal Jeevan Mission will be a
farce. On this premise, a mandamus has been sought for to direct the respondents to
implement the water supply projects under the Jal Jeevan Mission of the Jal Shakti
Ministry in a fixed time frame.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases particularly in the case of Bandhua
Mukti Morcha v. Union of India; (1984) 3 SCC 161, Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.;
(1996) 2 SCC 549, Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598 and A.P.
Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62 has held that right to
good drinking water is a fundamental right. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
A.P. Pollution Control Board II (supra) held at para Nos. 3 and 4 as below:—
“3. Drinking water is of primary importance in any country. In fact, India is a
party to the Resolution of the UNO passed during the United Nations Water
Conference in 1977 as under:
“All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and
economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantum
and of a quality equal to their basic needs.”
Thus, the right to access to drinking water is fundamental to life and there is a
duty on the State under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens.
4. Adverting to the above right declared in the aforesaid Resolution, in Narmada
Bachao Andolan v. Union of India; (2000) 10 SCC 664 at p.767), Kirpal J observed:
“248. Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of
right of life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India …..”
5. Similar issues for supply of drinking water was dealt with by the Court in PIL No.
47 of 2017 disposed of on 27.02.2019 and PIL No. 17 of 2019 disposed of on
24.09.2019.
6. A perusal of the Annexure, namely, P/1 makes it clear that the Chief Minister of
the State while inauguruating the Waithoupat water supply scheme has given all
details of total funds sanctioned and water supply schemes which are to be taken up.
There is no reasons for the Court to come to the conclusion that the water supply
schemes will be delayed or stalled and the learned Advocate General, Manipur assures
this Court that these schemes are sponsored and monitored by the Ministry of Jal
Shakti, Govt.of India and there are prescribed timeline which will be adhered to. There
is no reason for the petitioner to entertain doubts at the inception of the Jal Jeevan
Mission which is actively pursued by the State Government.
 SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2020
Page 3 Saturday, September 26, 2020
Printed For: Srijana Bahadur, Jamia Millia Islamia
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
7. We take note of the apprehension of the petitioner and we also notice the
objective of the Jal Jeevan Mission under the Jal Shakti Ministry and the steps taken
by the State Government in enhancing the water supply schemes. It is too early for
the Court to issue any direction as prayed for because it is the primary duty of the
Ministry of Jal Shakti and the State Government to monitor the effective
implementation of the Jal Jeevan Mission and we are hopeful that the Union
Government and the State Government will ensure prompt compliance of the terms of
sanction for the water supply schemes. We observe that the Central Government and
State Government have to take all necessary steps to ensure that the Jal Jeevan
Mission under the Jal Shakti Ministry is effectively implemented without undue delay.
8. The PIL stands disposed of with the above.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.