# Sharda Rani v. G.M., Lucknow Jal Sansthan, Lucknow & Anr - **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 634 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-01-12 - **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 24807 of 2020 - **Bench:** Alok Singh, Karunesh Singh Pawar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sharda-rani-v-g-m-lucknow-jal-sansthan-lucknow-anr-46785 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote drinking water - Constitution of India- Article 21 - It is the duty of the State to provide clean drinking water to its citizens. (Para 9) The possession of the petitioner in the house in question has been admitted by learned counsel for the intervener and the same is not in dispute, therefore in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Lucknow Jal Sansthan is under legal obligation to provide water connection to the petitioner. (Para ) Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-8) List of Cases cited :- ## Text 634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Apex Court in the the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1, come to rescue of the informant / victim. (2) The verdict of Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 does not pertain to issue of entitlement to writ of mandamus for compelling the police to perform statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C without availing alternative remedy under Section 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C.. (3) The informant/victim after furnishing first information regarding cognizable offence does not become functus officio for seeking writ of mandamus for compelling the police authorities to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C in case the FIR is not lodged. (4) The proposed accused against whom the first information of commission of cognizable offence is made, is not a necessary party to be impleaded in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to compel the police to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C. 46. From the above discussion of facts and analysis of law including the judicial verdict relied upon, we do not find any force in the argument as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available under law before appropriate forum. ---------- (2021)01ILR A634 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 12.01.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ALOK SINGH, J. THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Misc. Bench No. 24807 of 2020 Sharda Rani ...Petitioner Versus G.M., Lucknow Jal Sansthan, Lucknow & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Meena Verma, Ajay Tripathi Counsel for the Respondents: Namit Sharma (A) Fundamental Right - Right to access to drinking water - Constitution of India- Article 21 - It is the duty of the State to provide clean drinking water to its citizens. (Para 9) The possession of the petitioner in the house in question has been admitted by learned counsel for the intervener and the same is not in dispute, therefore in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Lucknow Jal Sansthan is under legal obligation to provide water connection to the petitioner. (Para ) Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-8) List of Cases cited :- 1. A.P. Pollution Control Board II Vs Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & ors. (2001) 2 SCC 62 2. Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking & anr. Vs St. of Har. & ors. (1996) 2 SCC 572 (Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Singh, J. & Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.) 1 All. Sharda Rani Vs. G.M., Lucknow Jal Sansthan, Lucknow & Anr. 635 1. Mr. Neel Kamal Mishra, Advocate made a mention that he has moved an application for impleadment in the Registry on 8.1.2021, however, the same is not on record. 2. Office is directed to trace the application and place it on record today itself. 3. On due appreciation, we permit the applicant Arvind Dharamrajan in C.M. Application No.4352 of 2021, to assist the Court as an intervener under Chapter XXII Rule 5-A of Allahabad High Court Rules. Application is disposed of accordingly. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ankur Tripathi, holding brief of Mr. Namit Sharma, learned counsel for respondents, as also Mr. Neel Kamal Mishra, Advocate for the applicant Arvind Dharamrajan, as an intervener. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lady whose husband Hariraj died on 2.4.2005. The first wife of Hariraj (petitioner's husband) died in the year 1982 and thereafter the petitioner married with Hariraj who was the owner of House No.9/961, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. After the death of the petitioner's husband, son of the first wife disconnected electricity and water connection of the first floor of the house where the petitioner resides along with her two minor children. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to complete all the formalities which are required by Lucknow Jal Sansthan. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Lucknow Jal Sansthan submits that they will provide the water connection provided the petitioner fulfills the formalities as provided under U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Water Supply Rules, 1968. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Neel Kamal Mishra, Advocate appearing for Mr. Arvind Dharamrajan, applicant submits that the mother of the applicant died in the year 1982 and thereafter the petitioner had married late Hariraj Ram. He submits that the applicant is the owner of the said house and has inherited the said house from his late father Hariraj Ram on his death in the year 2005. The applicant had constructed the house in question. He disputed the fact that mother of the applicant died in the year 1982; rather submits that she died in the year 1988 and thus the marriage of the present petitioner with the late father of the applicant was not a valid marriage. He next submitted that after the death of the father of the applicant, the petitioner raised claim for compassionate appointment and by presenting false claim, the appointment of the applicant on compassionate ground was challenged by the petitioner while filing Writ Petition No.1752(S/B) of 2008 Sharda Rani versus Director, Samaj Kalyan and others which was decided ex parte in her favour vide judgment and order dated 26.7.2013. Review petition filed by the present applicant was allowed and the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. It is thus submitted that the petitioner's marriage with late Hariraj Ram was not proved and she cannot have any claim over the house No.9/61, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant disputes the fact that the applicant/intervener stopped water 636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES connection to the first floor. He submits that the petitioner is somehow trying to get a water connection in her favour, only in order to get benefit of the same for the purpose of using it in succession suit which is pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Azamgarh. 9. After hearing parties' counsel and after perusal of the record, we are of the view that right to access to drinking water is a fundamental right to life and there is a duty on the State under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India to provide clean drinking water to its citizens. Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board II versus Prof.M.V. Nayudu(Retd) and others (2001)2 SCC 62 (paragraphs 3 and 4) has held as under : "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 Vs. Union of India ( 2000(7) Scale 34 ( at p.124), Kirpal J observed: "248. Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of right to life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India....." In Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking and another versus State of Haryana and others (1996)2 SCC 572 (relevant paras 3 and 4), Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations : "3...................The learned counsel took pains to bring to our notice by referring to some decisions of the American Court, as well as to some writings, that drinking is the most beneficial use of water and this need is so paramount that it cannot be made subservient to any other use of water, like irrigation. So, the right to use of water for domestic purpose would prevail over other needs. It is because of this that it was contended that what has been stated in Article 262 of the Constitution dealing with adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-State river or river valleys, read with Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956, could not exclude the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the grievance of the petitioner. 4. Shri Venugopal - in support of his contentions relied upon high authorities of State of Connecticut vs. Commonwealth of Massachuhetts; American Jurisprudence, Vol.78, 2d p.293; and C.D. Harris vs. John Brooks. We found plausibility in the contentions and were inclined to unfold new jurisprudential arena, despite strong objection to the same being taken by the State of Haryana................." 10. Since the possession of the petitioner in the house in question has been admitted by learned counsel for the intervener and the same is not in dispute, therefore in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above, we are of the view that the respondent Lucknow Jal Sansthan is under legal obligation to provide water connection to the petitioner. 11. In view of the above, with the consent of the parties' counsel, we dispose 1 All. Devsthan, Saidapur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 637 of this petition with a direction to Lucknow Jal Sansthan to provide water connection to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with rules, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of an E-copy of this order provided the petitioner completes all the formalities as provided under U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Water Supply Rules, 1968. 12. With this direction the writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this order shall not confer any title or right to any of the parties, to be used in any other proceedings. ---------- (2021)01ILR A637 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 27.01.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. Misc. Single No. 24919 of 2020 Devsthan, Saidapur ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mohd. Aslam Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey (A) Land Law - Resumption of land - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006: Section 59(4) c - Revenue Code Rules, 2016- Rues 54, 55 - Failure to publish the notification in the Gazette and the daily newspaper so as to give general notice to the public at large that the resumed and vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances, does not result in vitiating the whole exercise of resumption. It is only an irregularity and not an illegality that goes to the root of the matter. (Para 42) The Court had observed that there are three categories of persons vis-a-vis locus standi; (1) person aggrieved; (2) a stranger; (3) a busy body or a meddlesome interloper. At the time of the resumption of land, the land in question was recorded in the name of the Gram Sabha and not in the name of Devasthan, therefore, he cannot be said to be an "aggrieved person". (Para 35) The High Court can under Article 32 or 226 refuse to exercise its discretion of striking down the order if such striking down will result in restoration of another order passed in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party in violation of the principles of natural justice or is not in accordance with law. (Para 43) Writ Petition Rejected. (E-8) List of Cases cited :- 1. Vijai Kumari Vs Consolidation Officer Sawaijpur, Hardoi & 2 ors. 2019 (37) LCD 1701 AIR 1977 Allahabad 360 2. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Rosha Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmad & ors. 1976 (3) SCR 58 3. Nagar Rice & Flour Mills & ors. Vs. N.T. Gowda (1970) 1 SCC 575 4. M.C. Mehta Vs U.O.I. & ors. (1999) 6 SCC 237 5. Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government of An.P. & ors. AIR 1966 Supreme Court 828 6. Mohd. Swalleh & ors. Vs III A.D.J. (1988) 1 SCC 40 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.) 1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Upendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gaon Sabha.