- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40937 WP No. 12289 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12289 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: HALEANGADI GRAM PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT POORNIMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O VINOD, HALEYANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PAVANJE VILLAGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574154. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRUTHVIRAJ S., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RACHITHA RAJSHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCAHYAT MULKI, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574154 REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2. ROHIT N., BIN H.R. SHANKRAPPA NO.804, APEKSHA RESIDENCY KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE-575003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARANJITH SHETTY K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SUDHANVA D.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40937 WP No. 12289 of 2024 PANCHAYAT, MULKI BEARING NO.vÁ.¥ÀA.ªÀÄÄ/PÁ.¹.C/ªÉÄîä£À«/01/2023-24 DATED 04.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.vÁ.¥ÀA.ªÀÄÄ/PÁ.¹.C/ªÉÄîä£À«/01/2023-24 dated 04.12.2023 passed by respondent No.1 by which, he set aside a decision taken by the petitioner - Gram Panchayat not to provide water connection to the house of the respondent No.2. 2. (i) The respondent No.2 had filed an application with the petitioner for water supply to his house bearing No.4- 41-D on 14.02.2023. He had also deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner - Gram Panchayat on 11.07.2023. The Water Supply and Sanitization Committee of the petitioner held a meeting on 12.10.2023 and unanimously resolved that in view of drought and scarcity of potable water, it would provide water only for drinking purposes and not for commercial activities. While considering the case of the respondent No.2, the Committee noted that the petitioner - Gram Panchayat was not in a position to provide drinking water - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40937 WP No. 12289 of 2024 to more than 250 houses and therefore, rejected the application filed by the respondent No.2 and decided to refund the sum of Rs.5,000/- received by him. The same was intimated to the Taluk Panchayat on 13.10.2023. Following this, the petitioner - Gram Panchayat issued an endorsement dated 25.10.2023 informing the respondent No.2 about the rejection of his application. The respondent No.2 challenged this endorsement before the respondent No.1. The proceedings before the respondent No.1 stood adjourned from 21.11.2023 to 28.11.2023. The appeal before the respondent No.1 was allowed and the petitioner - Gram Panchayat was directed to provide a new water connection to the respondent No.2. (ii) Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 has not considered the report submitted by the petitioner - Gram Panchayat, where it was stated that the respondent No.2 had applied for a connection to his garage and not for his residence. He contends that there is acute scarcity of water and even 250 houses that are provided with - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40937 WP No. 12289 of 2024 connection are not supplied with water. Therefore, granting connection to a commercial building or for commercial activity would be unjust. He further contends that the respondent No.2 had filed an application for issuance of a licence for commercial activity in the same premises and that the same was rejected on 12.02.2024 as the Panchayat records disclosed that the property was used for residential activity. He therefore, contends that the respondent No.2 is also aware that the property where the water supply sanction is sought for, is used for commercial activity. He contends that the resolution of the Panchayat is to provide drinking water to residents and not to commercial premises. He therefore, contends that the respondent No.1 could not have interfered with the rejection of the application of the respondent No.2. 4. (i) The petition is opposed by the respondent No.2 contending that the reason for not providing water supply connection was that the area was reeling under drought and there was scarcity of drinking water. He contends that now there is copious rain fall and hence, the reason for not granting water supply connection does not exist as of now. He contends that he may have sought for water connection to a commercial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40937 WP No. 12289 of 2024 premises where he repairs trucks and other vehicles and he does not require huge quantity of water. He claims that he needs water for drinking and sanitization of the workers employed in the garage. He claims that his requirement is only 350 litres per day, which is far less than water consumed by a small family. (ii) He further contends that it has never been the practice of the petitioner to grant the water connection based on the decision of the Water and Sanitization Committee but was always based on the deliberations of the General Committee. He contends that for the first time, the petitioner has acted through the Committee, which has decided to reject his application. He claims that this is done at the behest of a member of the petitioner, who is a Chairman of the Committee who is against the petitioner's garage which is situated next to his house. He claims that though his application for the water supply connection was filed on 14.02.2023 and though several meetings of the Panchayat were held subsequently, his request was not placed in those meetings but was placed before the Committee. He contends that after he appealed before the respondent No.1, the petitioner has ratified the decision of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40937 WP No. 12289 of 2024 Committee by a resolution dated 28.11.2023 that too during the pendency of the appeal before the respondent No.1. (iii) He contends that after the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order, the Executive Officer and other officials proceeded to the spot to implement the order passed by the respondent No.1. However, the Chairman of the Committee and the President of the Panchayat abused the Executive Officer and other officials. He claims that there is no scarcity of water and there is no difficulty in providing the connection to his premises and the whole exercise is at the behest of an inimically ill-disposed member of the petitioner. (iv) He contends that under Section 58 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, the Panchayat is under an obligation to provide water to the residents and commercial establishments within its area. He therefore, contends that there is no discretion in the petitioner to refuse water connection to his property. (v) He contends that even according to the petitioner, the resolution was to defer granting water connection to him upto the end of financial year only. However, as he had - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40937 WP No. 12289 of 2024 approached the Lokayukta with a complaint against a Panchayat Development Officer, the petitioner had issued the impugned endorsement dated 12.02.2024 stating that further action would be initiated after receipt of the report from the Lokayukta. The respondent No.2 claims that he has been deprived of an essential service by the petitioner and the respondent No.1 after noticing the duty of the petitioner to provide water supply, has passed the impugned order, which is just and proper and does not call for interference. 5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 reiterated the above contentions and contended that the petitioner has refused to grant water supply connection to his truck garage on the ground that there is a drought situation. He contends that the reason for refusal to provide the connection cannot be applied perpetually. He contends that there was sufficient rain fall and there is no drought situation at present. He further contends at any rate the respondent No.2 cannot be denied the supply of drinking water. Even otherwise, he contends that under Section 58 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, it is incumbent upon the Panchayat to provide water supply to the residents and commercial establishments. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40937 WP No. 12289 of 2024 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 7. A perusal of the decision of the Committee dated 12.10.2023 shows that the Committee was alive to the fact that there was deficit rain fall in Pavanje village and that there was no sufficient water to supply to 250 households. Therefore, it decided not to provide water supply connection to commercial establishments. This was no doubt ratified by the petitioner on 28.11.2023. At any rate, this reason cannot be applied perpetually to deny the water supply connection to the petitioner. The petitioner is bound to re-consider the application after the situation has improved. 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the petitioner is bound to provide water supply not only to the residents but also to commercial establishments within its area as mandated under Section 58 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The respondent No.1 has taken into account the animosity between the Chairman of the Committee of Water Supply and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40937 WP No. 12289 of 2024 Sanitization and respondent No.2 over establishment of a truck garage adjacent to the house of the Chairman. The respondent No.1 also noted that under the Prime Minister's Jal Jeevan Mission, which was in force within the limits of the petitioner, the latter was bound to draw water from Tumbe river and/or by entering into agreement with private borewell owners and supply water. It also held that the decision of the Water Supply and Sanitization Committee is not final and the petitioner is bound to take a impartial decision. It therefore, set aside the decision of the Committee and directed granting of water supply connection to the respondent No.2. There is no error committed by the respondent No.1 in passing the impugned order warranting interference. 9. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 10. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27