Water Ground water Order of the Panchayat to close down the unit on the finding of excessive extraction of ground water is unauthorized Unauthorised.- Publicity given to pending matters in court - Judicial caravan of the Kerala State have gained unswayed by bouquets or brickbats . The Panchayat can at best only say no more extraction of ground water will be permitted and ask the Company to find out alternative sources for its water requirement. Government order to the extent it interfered with the closure of the unit has to be upheld. Ground water belongs to the public. The State and its instrumentalities should act as trustees of this great wealth. State has got a duty to protect ground water against excessive exploitation and the inaction of the State in this regard will tantamount to infringement of the right to life of the people guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Coca cola company has no right to extract much of national wealth and the extraction of ground water is illegal. [ Perumatty Grama Panchayat vs. State of Kerala. 2004 (1) KLT 731 = 2004 (1) KLJ 414 = 2004 (1) KAJ 354 . K.Balakrishnan Nair (J)]
Water pollution - Ganges - Discharge of trade effluents - Riparian industries.Government of India is directed to publish in newspapers general notice requiring such industries to file their affidavits before the Court by January, 15, 1992 stating steps taken to comply with Court's order dated 9th September 1985 .[ M.C.Mehta Vs Union of India. 1993 Supp (1) SCC 434. ]
Water in short supply in Lakshadweep - Large scale withdrawal with electrical and mechanical pumps depleting the water sources causing seepage or intrusion of saline water from Arabian Sea -Duty of the Government to provide pure drinking water.The Executive Government has onerous responsibilities in the matter of providing civic amenities. The Technocrat too has his role to play, in view of the impact the matter has on environmental and hydrological concerns. There must be an effective and wholesome interdisciplinary interaction. Over exploitation of water sources has to be contained. Environmentalists and Scientists in other disciplines have indicated the importance of water management in the present day. Perhaps water management will be one of the biggest challenges in the opening decades of the next century. With changes in the way of life, even a basically conventional society, may go in for modern means and make use of pumps to draw water from private wells.[Attakkoya Thangal v. Union of India. 1990(1) Kerala Law Times. 580 =AIR 1991 Ker 321 ].
Water - Right to life includes right to get water - Large section deprived of the right.Right to life includes the right to get water. "Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink". High court directed the formation of a committee consisting of Magistrate, Senior Advocates and bureaucrats, etc. as members to look into the matter seriously and immediately. [ S.K.Garg vs. State of U.P. AIR 1999 ALL 41. ]
Water Natural storage of water Denial of access - Not proper PIL. Matter concerning deprivation of basic requirement and right of villagers to have access to water shortage by natural source. Violation of right to reach natural water by an act of State. Pendency of civil suit filed by some of members of village . It will not affect right of other member to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction by initiating PIL. Land of bed of village pond . Allotment for the construction of hostel building is not proper. Land not available for allotment as it directly affects ecological balance and also affects right of villagers adversely to claim areas to rain water stored in natural reservoir which is part of right to life. There is no case of exceptional urgent necessity made out to invoke enabling power to allot land. [Lakh Singh vs State of Rajastan. AIR 2003 NOC 363 (Raj) = 2003 AIHC 1472. ]
Water Falling Groundwater Level Threatens City, -New item- Directions issued.Central Groundwater Resource Management Authority, to be constituted , with mandate for coordination and implementation of all activities of planning, development, allocation, implementation, research and monitoring of all water resources need to be established to promote intra and inter-generational equity, as also to operationalise the precautionary principle in sustainable water resource management. All the States need to constitute similar authorities with functions in the State as of the Central Authority. Their functions are (i) To deploy river basins as the basis for regional planning for sustainable water resource management (along with commensurate land use). (ii)To prepare medium and long-term national use plans inter alia including agricultural practices, human settlement patterns and industrial topology in consultation with Ministries/Departments concerned based on the regional water supportive capacity (iii)To assess the present irrigation practices and cropping patterns, with respect to high water consuming crops and lay down National Agricultural Water Use Policy to encourage judicial use of water resources.(iv) To keep under review groundwater levels and quality, and surface water quantity to devise and implement pragmatic strategies at plan and programme levels. (v) To ensure maintenance of minimum flows in the rivers so as to fulfill the riparian rights to protect the flood plains, to as also protect the vital ecological functions of the rivers; (vi)To ensure techno-economic feasibility and to implement programmes on reuse of appropriately treated sewage for agriculture, reuse of industrial waste waters as industrial process water, use of treated sewage in social forestry and public parks in municipal areas and reuse of treated wastewater in new housing complexes for non-consumptive usages; (vii) To protect, conserve and augment traditional water retaining structures; (viii) To protect, conserve and augment natural and manmade wetlands in the country; (ix) To promote rain water harvesting in human settlement practices, particularly in cities with more than 10 lakh population in arid/semi arid regions; (x) To promote and implement modern and traditional water harvesting technologies to ensure minimal expenditure in groundwater harnessing (xi) To design and implement programmes to arrest alarming rates of decline in snowline in the country;(xii) To ensure catchment area treatment, including construction of check dams, contour bundling, control of river bank erosion and plantation of endemic fast-growing tree species to arrest soil and water loss in all river basins (xii) To ensure implementation of afforestation programmes for achieving a minimum of 33% forest cover as per National Forest Policy, 1988; (xiii) Prepare and implement guidelines on water rate structure for various water usages commensurate with the production and scarcity value of the resource; (xiv)To ensure community participation with a view to harnessing traditional knowledge at all stages in the holological approach to water resource management.[ M.C.Mehta vs Union of India. (1997) 11 SCC 312 ] .
Water sharing dispute between states Inter state River Krishna Right to water is fundamental . Right to water is a right to life Right to water is recognized by UNO Direction issued to the Tribunal .[State of Karnataka vs. State of Andhra Pradesh .(2000) 9 SCC572 = 2000 Supreme (4) 39 . ]
Water Disputes between two states Cauvery Tribunal Interim order.Interim petition seeking relief of water by Karnataka Dismissed by Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal Not proper Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the provisions of the inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and has an authority to decide the limits, powers and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Court has not only the power but obligation to decide as to whether the Tribunal has any jurisdiction or not under the Act, to entertain any interim application till it finally decides the dispute referred to it. [State of Tamil Nadu vs. State of Karnataka. 1991 Supp (1) SCC 240 ].
Water Diaries near pipelines directions issued. Supply of pure drinking water is the statutory duty of the Municipal Corporation and the supply of such water has to be ensured to every citizen. In a situation, where the interest of the community is involved, the individual interest must yield to the interest of the community or the general public. Since the Cattle (Control) Act, 1978 is already in force within the Municipal limits of Jabalpur city, the dairies cannot be established and cattle cannot be kept so as to cause public nuisance in contravention of the statutory provisions. But the Court cannot also overlook the fact that the petitioners, who had already been uprooted from one place, and that too, at the dictate of the judiciary, had established dairies at a place at which such activity was not prohibited. [Ramji Patel vs Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch. 2000 (3) SCC 29 = 2000 (2) JT 205. ]
Water Pollution in Bhavni River Discharge of effluents from distillery in river and adjoining areas Disposal of writ petition on the basis of the report of Pollution Control Board Highly depreciated. Division Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition on the basis of the report by the Pollution Control Board Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court failed to appreciate the true significance of the matter regarding the need to arrest the unabated pollution, which had become a health hazard and environmental enemy because of the discharge of effluents fro the distillery into Bhavani River and adjoining area. High Court fell in error to dispose of the writ petition merely on the consent of the Pollution Control Board. Further, the Supreme Court remanded the writ petition to the High Court to consider the NEERI report also. [ President of India vs Bhavni River . AIR 1998 SC 2578 = (1998) 6 SCC 335 = 1998 (5) JT 214 = 1998 (4) SCALE 322. 1998 (8) Supreme 169 = 1998 AIRSCW 2609 ]
Water pollution - Sugar Mill - Gonda District of UP- Directions issued. Sugar factory undertaken before the Court that effluent treatment plant instruments would be fixed before it began operation in the next season. Court directed the State Pollution Control Board to ensure that the effluents are treated before the unit restarted and the boiler was replaced within a time-frame. [ Satish Chandra Shukla vs State of U.P.. 1992 Supp SCC 94.Ranganath Misra, M.H.Kania and Kuldip Singh (JJ) ]
Water Drinking Water Lakshadweep Islands Exploitation of ground water.Threat to the drinking water sources in the island . A technically viable scheme consistent with natural constraints must be evolved .To decide on the modalities, the matter should receive a final look at the hands of the ministries of the Government. [ F.K.Hussain vs Union of India. AIR 1990 Ker 321. C.Sankaran Nair (J)]
Water pollution by distillery's effluents - Scheme for adequate safeguards famed by the Court on the basis of Report of Expert Committee -Distillery permitted to restart its production with condition that in case of aliments caused to any person due to effluent discharged, the distillery company shall bear expenses of medical treatment.
In public interest litigation by a social worker alleging that a distillery had been discharging beyond its premises untreated effluents, chemical wastes and sewage, thereby contaminating the water resources and by polluting environment, the High Court permitted the said distillery company to restart its manufacturing provokes with adequate safeguards in terms of a scheme framed by the High Court on the basis of Experts Committees report. High Court directed that in case it comes to light at any person has contracted any ailment the cause of which can be directly related to the effluent discharged by the distillery, the company shall have to bear all expenses of his treatment and the question of awarding suitable compensation to the victim may also be considered. [Rajiv Ranjan Singh Vs The State of Bihar. AIR 1992 Pat 86. Satya Brata Sanyal and Aftab Alam {JJ}.]
Water Pollution Air Pollution Noise Pollution VIP Pollution Nainital Directions issued.Directions issued . Sewage water has to be prevented at any cost from entering the lake . Buildings materials are not allowed to be heaped on the drains to prevent siltation of the lake. Care has been taken to see that horse dung does not reach the lake . Multi-storied group housing and commercial complexes have to be banked in the town area of Nainital . Building of small residential house in flat areas however, could be permitted. Offence of illegal felling of trees could be made cognizable. Fragile nature of Ballia Revine has to be reduced. Monitoring committee to be set up . [ Dr. Ajay Singh Rawat vs Union of India. (1995)3 SCC 266 = JT 1995(3) SC 39. ]
Water Pollution in Yamuna River Report of CPCB No improvement in water quality Notice to the Delhi Administration that if water quality cannot improve penalty to be imposed. Undertaking given by an industrialist that he does not wish to commence industry recorded and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- Report of CPCB indicating that there is no improvement in the water. [ News item Hindustan Times A.Q.F.M. Yamuna vs Central Pollution Control Board. 1999(5) Scale 418 = 2001 AIR SCW 2506 ]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. Sec.58 Suit for granting permanent injunction restraining defendant from letting noxious fluids into river Maintainable No bar of jurisdiction of civil court.Sec.58 of the Water Act does not prohibit the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceedings restraining the defendant to cause pollution. The section is intended to preserve the statutory protection given to the Boards untouched by Civil actions. The present action is only preventing the defendant from polluting water. But this section is not directed to annul any orders passed by the authority constituted under the Act. [ M/s. Sreenivasa Distilleries vs S.R.Thygarajan . AIR 1986 AP 328 : (1986) 1 Andh LT 198 = (1986)2 APLJ (HC) 403.]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 S.25- Industrial Establishment discharging trade effluents into a stream which was used for irrigation causing damage to crops. Direction given by the Board to close the industry , upheld. Industrial Establishment discharging trade effluents into the stream. State Pollution Control Board granted conditional consent for the discharge of the effluents. Conditions not complied with. The consent given by the Board would lapse.[M/S Narula Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. Union of India AIR 1995 Guj 185 . ]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Business of dyeing and printing cloth No right to pollute High Court directed industries to set up Common Effluent Treatment Plant . Factories carrying on the business of dyeing and printing of cloth discharging toxic substances in water used for agriculture, drinking , etc. High Court directed industries, state and its agencies to set up common effluent treatment plant so that effluents cannot be discharged into canals. Six principles can be culled out from Arts.21, 48-A and 51-A(g) and various judicial pronouncements(1) All human beings have fundamental right to unpolluted environment, pollution-free water and air, (2) State is obliged to preserve and protect environment (3) It is mandatory for State and its agencies , to conceive, anticipate, prevent and attack causes of environmental degradations . (4) Industry cannot be permitted to continue as a matter of right, in case it creates pollution (5) Polluter must meet cost of repairing environment and ecology and pay reparation to those, who have suffered because of pollution caused by him (6) Considerations of economy cannot prevail over concerns for environment and ecology . [ Singh Punia vs Rajashtan State Board of Pollution Control of Water Pollution. AIR 2003 Raj 286 ]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Sec. 2 (e) Water pollution need to protect drinking water sources to be protected. Burden of proof State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to identify the industries which are located within 10 kms radius of the lakes and to prevent pollution to the drinking water in these two reservoirs No industries within 10 kms of the river. [ A.P.Pollution Control Board II vs Prof.M.V.Nayadu (Retd) and ors. 2000 AIRSCW 4573 = 2001 (2) SCC 62 = 2000(8) SCALE 23. ]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act Sec. 2 (c ) - Company manufacturing Rayon Grade Pulp a base material for manufacturing of synthetics or man made fabrics not liable to pay cess.The purpose of the Act is to realise money from those whose activities lead to pollution and who must bear the expenses of the maintenance and running of the State Board. AIR 1983 Ker 110 overruled. [ Member-Secretary, A.P.S.P.C.Board vs A.P.Rayons. AIR 1989 SC 611 = 1988 (4) JT 15402 = 1988 (2) Scale 1181 = 1989 (1) SCC 44.]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 Sec 2 (c ) Metallurgical industry Not liable to pay cess Technical statute Interpretation. Industry having dominant engineering part producing automobiles and secondary metallurgical part melting of scraps and producing steel for using in manufacture of automobiles is not metallurgical industry . So far as the scientific and technical language in a statute is concerned, if the statute is with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction, then the word used therein which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows and understands to have a particular meaning of it, then those words should be construed as having that particular meaning which may differ from the ordinary or popular meaning. [ Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co.Ltd vs Jamshedpur. AIR 1989 Pat 23. ]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act Secs. 3, 6 and Sch I Entry .15 Sugar manufacturing industry is liable to pay cess.Sugar industry is one of the main sources of causing water pollution. Sugar industry would thus be an industry engaged in the processing of any vegetable products and as such, would be covered by the Cess Act. [ Kisan Sahkri Chini Mills Ltd vs. State of UP. AIR 1987 ALL 298 . ]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act (36 of 1977) is valid. Main function of the Pollution Control Board is not to allow to cause health hazard to the public. Cess Act is dovetailed into the Pollution Act. The charging section itself, explicitly states that the levy of the Cess is for the purposes of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and utilisation there under. The main function of the Board as constituted under the Pollution Act is to ensure that the trade effluent discharged into the river is so regulated as not to cause any health hazard to the public. The rules framed under the Pollution Act contain very many matters of minute details to achieve this object. [The Member Secretary, Kerala State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution vs. The Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Company Ltd. AIR 1986 Kerala 256. ]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Sec. 26 - Treatment of sewage - Control measures - No discharge of untreated effluent sewage in Yamuna river.In case of Noida treated sewage goes in river. In case of Sahibabad STP"s are near completion and assurance given that after trial runs by March, 2001 no untreated effluents sewage will be discharged in river Yamuna. State directed to file an affidavit indicating steps that will be taken to see that March, 2001 Indrapuri Sewage is also treated. [ News Item " Hindustan Times" A.Q.F.M.Yamuna vs C.P.C.Board. 2001 AIRSCW 2399. ]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Secs. 30 and 33-A - Yamuna River - Pollution - Report of CPCB not indicating any improvement in water quality - Directions issued. On undertaking given by one of the industrialist that he does not wish to commence industry , Supreme Court directed him to pay Rs.25,000/- as fine . Court directed that if the water quality does not improve not only earlier penalty of fine which was suspended be directed to be realized but further action may also be undertaken. [ News Item " Hindustan Times" A.Q.F.M.Yamuna vs C.P.C.Board. 2001 AIRSCW 2506 = 2000 (5) SCALE 196 .]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Sec. 24 - Aquaculture farms -Construction affecting the nearby tank - Discharging organic effluents - Authorities can take action. Aquaculture farms within the tank bed of a tank - They cannot be permitted to destroy the very irrigation system with a view to see that their lands do not get submerged in the tank . Petitioners cannot be permitted to raise bunds damaging the very irrigation system . Tank bed land is meant for public purpose [ K.K.Krishnaiah v. Mandal Executive Magistrate. AIR 2001 A.P. 190. ]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, Sec.21 - Restraining occupier from discharging effluent - Sample must be taken in accordance with law. Sample of water must be lifted from the stream or well in accordance with provision of sec.21. Then only its analysis could be admissible in evidence in proceedings under Sec.33 of the Act. [M/s. Delhi Bottling Co.Pvt Ltd vs Central Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution. AIR 1986 Delhi 152]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. Sec.33 A Direction to close down industry Without hearing the industry violation of the principles of natural justice.Industry commenced production after obtaining requisite licences, permissions from various statutory authorities including consent from the Pollution Control Board. On the apprehension that there was likely to be a grave injury caused to surrounding environment , establishment was ordered to be closed without hearing the industry. The order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, but also in contravention of mandatory requirement of rule 4 (3b) of the Environment Protection Rules. [ Brindavan Phosphates (P) Ltd vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. [2004]17 ILD 137. ]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Sec.133- Cr.P.C.Sec.133 - Magistrate - Jurisdiction limited.In regard to pollution of water by effluents, the Water Act is a complete code in itself and if these two provisions are to co-exist, that would certainly be causing inconvenience, if not conflict of jurisdiction. The provisions of the Water Act by implication,, repeal the provisions of Sec.133 of Cr.P.C in so far as they relate to prevention and control of water pollution. Therefore Executive Magistrate has no jurisdiction to deal with it under the provisions of Sec.133. [ Tata Tea Ltd vs. State of Kerala. 1984 KLT 645. ]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Sec.33A- Effluent treatment plant not used - Order to closure of factory is proper and legal.Effluent treatment plant of Industry was not in operation. Partially treated effluents discharged, joining in tank thereby causing water pollution in the tank thereby causing water pollution in the tank resulting in danger to public life. Order by authorities directing closure of industry was not shockingly disproportionate and excessively severe. [M/s. Ambuga Petrochemicals Ltd vs. A.P.Pollution Control Board and ors. AIR 1997 A.P. 41 = 1996 (3) Andh LD 422 . ]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Sec. 47 (1) Offence by companies Not necessary to state specifically that the M.Director was in charge.Section does not mandate the incorporation of the allegation that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance or was attributable to the neglect on the part of the Chairman, Director or General Manager of the Company in the complaint itself. [ Madhumd Ali vs State . AIR 1986 Pat 133 (FB) : 1986 Pat LJR (HC) 123 : 1986 BLJR 154 : 1986 BLJ 194 : (1986)1 CrlLC 706.]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 - Hydro Electric Power generating industry - not necessary to pay water cess.An industry generating hydro power is not included in industries specified in Schedule 1 of the Act. Notification purporting to amend the schedule in order to include hydro power generating industry placed before each House of Parliament . No steps taken to place it before each house of parliament . Imposition of cess on hydro power generating industry is illegal . [ Union of India vs National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 2512.]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Establishment of Medical College and Hospital on the banks of river- No decision taken by the PCB - Deemed consent can be presumed. Pollution Control Board sitting over the application for a long period, taking no steps to either grant or refuse required permission. Refusal order passed after six months period. Area not declared as sensitive by publication of notification by State or Central Government . Board cannot arrogate itself right to declare an area as sensitive. Starting of construction without obtaining consent is not proper. [ M/s. Vijyanagar Educational Trust vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. AIR 2002 Karnataka 123. ]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Disposal of the public interest litigation on the basis of the consent obtained from the Pollution Control Board Improper.Merely because consent has been given by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board writ petition disposed of High Court directed to re-consider the matter in detail . [ Sugarcane G & S.Sugars Shareholders Association vs T.N.Pollution Control Board. AIR 1998 SC 2614 = 1998 (2) JT 671 = 1998 (8) Supreme 288 = 1998 AIRSCW 2654.]
Water (Pollution and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Necessity to have effluent treatment plant. PIL -Factories carrying on business of dying and printing of cloth discharging toxic substance in water used for agriculture , drinking , etc . High Court directed industry, State and its agencies to set up common effluent treatment plant so that effluents are not discharged in canals. [ Vijay Singh P.Unia vs Rajasthan State Board of Pollution Control of Water Pollution. AIR 2003 Raj 286 : [2004]17 ILD 390. ]
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Sec. 24 - Aquaculture farms -Construction affecting the nearby tank - Discharging organic effluents - Authorities can take action. Aquaculture farms within the tank bed of a tank - They cannot be permitted to destroy the very irrigation system with a view to see that their lands do not get submerged in the tank . Petitioners cannot be permitted to raise bunds damaging the very irrigation system. Tank bed land is meant for public purpose [ K.K.Krishnaiah v. Mandal Executive Magistrate. AIR 2001 A.P. 190. B.Sudershan Reddy (J&J)]
Drinking Water- Problem of availability in Delhi- Non-release of sufficient drinking water by Haryana from the Tejwala Head- Directions issued. So far as water supply from river Jamuna to Delhi is concerned, directed that Delhi shall continue to get as much water for domestic use from Haryana through river Jamuna which can be consumed and filled in the two water reservoirs and treatment plants at Wazirabad and Hyderpur. Both the Wazirabad and Hyderpur reservoirs shall remain full to their capacity from the water supplied by Haryana through river Jamuna. Court directed the State of Haryana through all its officers who are party to these proceedings and who have filed affidavits before the Supreme Court not to obstruct the supply of water to Delhi as directed by the Court at any time. This order of the court is not dependent on the MOU mentioned above or any other proceedings, which may be initiated under any other law between the parties. [Delhi Water Supply & Sewerage Disposal Undertaking and another. 1996(6) JT SC 107 ]
Constitution of India - Art. 21 - Right to pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. Right to live is fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and it includes the right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs the quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Art.32 for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life. [Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar. AIR 1991 SC 420 = (1991)1 SCC 598. ]
Constitution of India- Art. 21 - Right to life - Bore wells - Right to dig - can be restrained only by law - Underground water .Right to life enshrined in Art.21 means that right to live includes all those aspects of life which go to make mans' life meaningful , complete and worth living. The word law as used in Art.21 would not include mere executive or departmental instructions which have no statutory basis. Therefore, the right to dig bore-wells to draw underground water can be restricted or regulated only by an Act of the legislature. [ Puttappa Honnappa Talavar vs Deputy Commissioner. AIR 1998 Kant 10 = 1997(3) Kant LJ 136 .]