AP High Court Allows Unauthorized RO Plant To Continue In Public Interest, Says Access To Clean Potable Water Is Part Of Right To Life
The Andhra Pradesh High Court permitted an unauthorized RO water plant established without prior permission under the Water, Land and Trees Act and the Panchayat Raj Act to operate, after observing that access to clean and safe drinking water is fundamental facet of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. In doing so the court said that “the welfare of the people is the...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court permitted an unauthorized RO water plant established without prior permission under the Water, Land and Trees Act and the Panchayat Raj Act to operate, after observing that access to clean and safe drinking water is fundamental facet of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In doing so the court said that “the welfare of the people is the supreme law" wherein State has a fiduciary duty towards citizens specially those in rural areas to have access to clean potable water.
For context, Sections 8 and 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act (WALTA) 2002 regulate extraction and use of groundwater by requiring prior permission from the competent authority for digging borewells, while Section 120 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act mandates prior approval from the Gram Panchayat for installation or operation of machinery such as an R.O. water plant.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti said that while the Court was mindful of the fact that the petitioner cultivator has approached this Court with "unclean hands" and has bypassed statutory mandates under WALTA Act and the AP Panchayat Raj Act, the larger public interest and the welfare of the villagers cannot be sacrificed due to the violations of the procedural technicalities.
The Court remarked:
“This Court must emphasise that access to clean and safe drinking water is not a mere luxury, but a fundamental facet of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State and its instrumentalities are under a constitutional and fiduciary obligation to ensure that the citizens, particularly in rural areas, have access to potable water...
When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, one should prioritise the substantial justice. In a choice between strictly penalising a law-violator and ensuring the continued supply of an essential life resource to the public, the scales of justice must tilt toward the latter. The welfare of the people is the supreme law (Salus populi est suprema lex). It is this public importance and the necessity of ensuring drinking water supply that compels this Court to take a pragmatic view, ensuring that while the law is upheld, the public should not be deprived of a basic necessity.”
The case arose from a writ petition filed by a cultivator challenging the seizure of his R.O. drinking water plant and borewell, contending that he had established the unit on ancestral property to supply potable water to villagers at nominal cost and that the authorities seized it without prior notice. The petitioner argued that no permission was required under the WALTA Act or Panchayat Raj Act and claimed that the Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution permitting operation of the unit.
Opposing the petition, the authorities contended that the petitioner lacked requisite permissions for the borewell and R.O. plant and had filed a fabricated Panchayat resolution before the Court.
After examining the original Panchayat records, the High Court found that the alleged resolution permitting operation of the unit was fabricated, noting that the actual resolution recorded that the R.O. plant was being operated without permission and could function only after obtaining requisite approvals. The Court further observed that the petitioner's application for permission under the WALTA Act had been rejected by the Tahsildar and the rejection order was never challenged, while clarifying that violation of principles of natural justice in seizing the unit without opportunity would not entitle the petitioner to continue operating it illegally.
Balancing statutory compliance with public interest in ensuring access to safe drinking water, the High Court directed that the seizure notice be treated as a show-cause notice and permitted the petitioner to submit an explanation and seek requisite permissions in accordance with law.
Case Title: Konka Srinu @ Srinivasulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 20892 of 2025
Counsels for Petitioner: P. Sivannarayana
Counsels for Respondent: GP for Revenue, M. Sudhir, GP for Home