1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

( Special Original Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Twenty First day of November Two Thousand Sixteen
PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU

and
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.V.MURALIDARAN

WMP(MD) No.14722 of 2016

IN
WP(MD) No.20558 of 2016

DR.D.A.PRABAKAR ... PETITIONER/PETITIONER

Vs

1 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU,

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
FORT.ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI 600 009.
2 THE STATE WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AGENCY,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR / MEMBER SECRETARY,
SWARMA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU,
TARAMANI, CHENNAI 600 113.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, TIRUNELVELI 627 009.

4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

STATE INDUSTRIES PROMOTION CORPORATION OF
TAMILNADU, 19A, RUKMANI LAKSHMIPATHY ROAD,
POST BOX 7223 EGMORE, CHENNAI 600 008.
5 THE COMMISSIONER,
MAANUR PANCHAYAT UNION, MAANUR,
TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.
6 THE CHAIRMAN / MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PRATHISHTA BUSINESS SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,
CO-PACKERS FOR PEPSI COLA COMPANY,
SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE,
GANGAIKONDAN VILLAGE,
MAANUR TALUK, TIRUNELVELI.

7 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

SOUTH INDIA BOTTLING CO(P)LTD.,
CO-PACKERS FOR COCA COLA COMPANY,
SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE,
GANGAIKONDAN VILLAGE, MAANUR TALUK,
TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
 2

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and

in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to
pass an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent No.4
from supplying the river water to the Respondents 6 and 7 for
manufacturing beverages or value added products of drinking water or
drinking water under name and style of mineral water or soft drinks,
and consequently forbear the respondent the Respondent No.5 from
renewing the license issued to the Respondent No.6 and 7, pending
disposal of the WP(MD) No.20558 of 2016.

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the

petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing
the arguments of MR.ASWIN RAJA SIMMAN, Senior Counsel for
M/S.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.AAYIRAM
K.SELVAKUMAR, Government Advocate for R1 to R3 and R5 and of
MR.N.ADITHYA VIJAYALAYAN, Advocate for R4 and the Court made the
following order:-

(Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU,J)

The petitioner claims to be the Secretary of the

Tirunelveli District Consumer Protection Association and also a
practising Advocate. The 4th respondent is an undertaking of the
Government of Tamil Nadu and it is a public limited company,
registered under the Companies Act, 1956, wholly owned by the
Government of Tamil Nadu. This Court is informed that the specific
objective of the 4 respondent is to play a catalytic role in the
th

promotion and development of micro and small industries and

hastening the industrial dispersal throughout the State of Tamil
Nadu.

2.The respondents 6 and 7 have entered into agreements with

the 4th respondent and established their industries in the SIPCOT
Industrial Growth Centre, Gangaikondan Village, Maanur Taluk,
Tirunelveli District and they are manufacturing soft drinks known as
“COCA COLA” and “PEPSI COLA” and when they established their
manufacturing Units in the said industries for manufacturing COCA
COLA and PEPSI COLA soft drinks, the 4th respondent has assured to
supply them water from Tamirabarani River. According to the said
arrangement, the 4 respondent takes water from Tamirabarani River
th

and supplies 9,00,000 Litres of water to the 6th respondent industry

and 15,00,000 litres of water to the 7th respondent industry, per
day, at the cost of 37.5 paise per litre.

3.The petitioner, in a larger public interest of the people

of Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi Districts, who are the beneficiaries
of Tamirabarani River and its tributaries, has come up with this
writ petition to forbear the respondents 1 to 5 from supplying
Tamirabarani River Water to respondents 6 and 7, either for the
preparation of soft drinks or drinking water, under the name of
mineral water or soft drinks. The petitioner has also come with a
 3

miscellaneous petition in WMP(MD)NO.14722 of 2016, seeking for an

interim injunction to restrain the 4th respondent from supplying
Tamirabarai River water to respondents 6 and 7 for manufacturing the
above drinks, pending disposal of the writ petition.

4.When the writ petition and the miscellaneous petition

came up for hearing on 25.10.2016, learned Government Advocate took
notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 and this Court ordered notice
to respondents 6 and 7, for the hearing on 10.11.2016. But, it is
reported by the Registry that notice could not be served on the
respondents 6 and 7 for the hearing on 10.11.2016. The matter is
listed today. Respondents 1 to 5 have not filed any counter, so
far. The learned Government Advocate sought for time to file
counter, both in the main writ petition as well as in the
miscellaneous petition. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that if interim order is not granted, as prayed for, the
livelihood of the people of Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi Districts,
more particularly the farmers of these districts, whose lands are
irrigated by Tamirabarani River, would be worst affected, more
particularly because of the existing severe drought in both the
districts. Considering the said submission, we heard the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
respondents 1 to 5.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted that

during the current year, due to failure of monsoons, there is no
sufficient water storage in any of the dams in the State of Tamil
Nadu. He further submitted that so far as Papanasam Dam, through
which Tamirabarani River gets water, is concerned, there is no
sufficient water storage in it. So far as the other tributaries are
concerned, according to the learned counsel, in those tributaries
also there is no sufficient flow of water. As a result, according
to the learned counsel, there is severe drinking water scarcity and
people are suffering a lot in both the districts and the
agricultural operations have almost come to a standstill.

6.On the legal issues involved, the learned counsel

submitted that in the SIPCOT Complex at Gangaigondan village, there
are about 27 industries established, for which the 4th respondent is
drawing 18,40,871 litres of water, per day, from Tamirabarani River
and supplying the same to these industries. There is yet another
SIPCOT Complex in Thoothukudi, wherein there are 73 industries, for
which 15,89,769 litres are being drawn from Tamirabarani River and
supplied to those industries, per day. The learned counsel would
submit that there was no study conducted by the 4th respondent before
agreeing to supply such a huge quantity of water drawn from
Tamirabarani River to these industries, including the rights of the
farmers, who are depending upon agriculture and the people of these
two districts, whose drinking water needs are satisfied only from
Tamirabarani River water.
 4

7.The learned counsel further submitted that the

tributaries of Tamirabarani River, namely, Peyar, Kallar, Karaiyar,
Pambar and Servalar also do not have sufficient water flow due to
failure of monsoons and this has also not been taken into account by
the 4th respondent. The learned counsel would further point out that
'National Sanctuary – Spotted Deer Park Protected Area' is located
near the SPICOT Industrial Complex in Tirunelveli, as per
G.O.Ms.No.150 Department of Environment and Forest, dated
01.10.2013. He would further submit that the spotted deer in the
above park would also be worst affected due to scarcity of water,
because considerable portion of water is sucked from Tamirabarani
River and supplied to respondents 6 and 7. The learned counsel
further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been taking,
consistently, the view that rivers, forests and minerals and such
other resources, which constitute a nation's natural wealth, are not
be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation and every
generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and
conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible
way and it is in the interest of mankind and in the interest of
nation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath –
(1997) 1 SCC 388, has reiterated the 'Public Trust Doctrine' and has
held that such doctrine primarily rests on the principle that
certain resources like air, sea, water and forests have such a great
importance to the people as a whole and that it would be wholly
unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. (The
expression 'private ownership' needs to be emphasized). The
Supreme Court has further held that the said sources being a gift of
nature, they should be made freely available to everyone,
irrespective of the status in life and the doctrine enjoins upon
the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the
general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership
or commercial purposes. (The expression 'commercial purposes' also
needs to be emphasized).

8.Referring to these judgments, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that in the instant case, because huge quantity
of water is sucked by the 4th respondent to supply to respondents 6
and 7 for commercial purposes, the general public at large, living
in these two districts and the farmers of these districts, are worst
affected. The learned counsel further submitted that atleast
considering the severe drought now prevailing in these districts,
interim order of injunction, restraining the 4th respondent from
supplying water, drawn from Tamirabarani River, to respondents 6 and
7 for the purpose of manufacturing soft drinks and mineral water
should be granted.

9.Learned Government Advocate submitted that he needs time

to get further instruction from the respondents 1 to 5 to file
counter affidavits. Though the learned Government Advocate made a
fervent request for time to file counter, considering the urgency in
the matter and considering the sufferings which the people in these
 5

two districts are going to experience due to severe drought, we are

unable to adjourn the case without granting interim injunction.

10.We find prima facie justification in the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have gone
through the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ
petition and also other documents filed thereof. Undoubtedly, it
is crystal clear that now the whole of State of Tamil Nadu is under
severe drought, due to failure of the monsoons and it is an accepted
fact that almost all the reservoirs in the State of Tamil Nadu are
the victims of failure of monsoons and there is no sufficient water.
As a matter fact, agricultural operations in many districts in the
State have come to a halt. So far as the Districts of Tirunelveli
and Thoothukudi are concerned, the river Tamirabarani and its
tributaries are the only source of irrigation for several hectares
of agricultural lands in these two districts. River Tamirabarani
and its tributaries mainly depend upon the two monsoons, known as
south-west monsoon and north-east monsoon. Because of the total
failure of these two monsoons till today, there is likelihood of
severe drought in these two districts. As has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is the duty of the State as well as this
Court to ensure the livelihood and the welfare of the general
public, by making these natural resources available to them, instead
of diverting the same for commercial purpose. We are also of the
view that stopping supply of water by the 4th respondent to
respondents 6 and 7, drawing from Tamirabarani River, for the
purpose of manufacturing soft drinks and mineral waters, at least
for a limited period, would be in the interest of general public.
We find that there is urgent and impelling need to grant interim
injunction for a limited period of eight weeks.

11.Having regard to all the above, we grant interim

injunction, as prayed for, for a period of eight weeks. Notice.

Registry is directed to list the matter 18.01.2017.

sd/-
21/11/2016
/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

TO

1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STATE OF TAMIL NADU,

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, FORT.ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI 600 009.
2 THE STATE WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AGENCY,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR / MEMBER SECRETARY,
SWARMA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU,
TARAMANI, CHENNAI 600 113.
 6

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, TIRUNELVELI 627 009.

4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

STATE INDUSTRIES PROMOTION CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU,
19A, RUKMANI LAKSHMIPATHY ROAD,
POST BOX 7223 EGMORE, CHENNAI 600 008.
5 THE COMMISSIONER,
MAANUR PANCHAYAT UNION, MAANUR,
TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.
6 THE CHAIRMAN / MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PRATHISHTA BUSINESS SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,
CO-PACKERS FOR PEPSI COLA COMPANY,
SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE,
GANGAIKONDAN VILLAGE,
MAANUR TALUK, TIRUNELVELI.

7 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

SOUTH INDIA BOTTLING CO(P)LTD.,
CO-PACKERS FOR COCA COLA COMPANY,
SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE,
GANGAIKONDAN VILLAGE, MAANUR TALUK,
TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

ORDER IN
WMP(MD) No.14722 of 2016
IN WP(MD) No.20558 of 2016
Date :21/11/2016
msm/skn/sar3/23.11.16/p6/8c