Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010054872021 2025:GAU-AS:3207 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2207/2021 DR. MOROMI GOSWAMI BHATTACHARYYA D/O LATE DEBI PRASAD GOSWAMI RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 9, ARUNACHAL PATH, R.G BARUAH ROAD, PO BAMUNIMAIDAM, PS GEETANAGAR, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 781021 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT .OF ASSAM, HOME (B) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWARAGE BOARD @ JAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR GANESHGURI GUWAHATI 06 ASSAM 3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWARAGE BOARD ALIAS JAL BOARD GANESHGURI GUWAHATI 06 ASSAM 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWARAGE BOARD ALIAS JAL BOARD GANESHGURI GUWAHATI 06 Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM 5:MANAGING DIRECTOR JAL BOARD GANESHGURI GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K K MAHANTA, MR S GAUTAM,MR. K SINGHA,MS N BEGUM,MR. K M MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. S P CHOUDHURY (r-2,3,4,5),MR. S BORA (SC, JAL BOARD,MR P NAYAK (SC, JAL BOARD),SC, ASSAM URBAN WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY O R D E R 24.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. KK Mahanta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. N Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Nayak, learned standing counsel for the Jal Board and Ms. M Bora, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S P Choudhury, learned standing counsel for the Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to laying of a water pipe line measuring 65’ X 1 meter over ground instead of laying the said pipeline underground and due to such action on the part of the respondents authorities, it has caused a public nuisance and affecting the petitioner substantially inasmuch as the petitioner shall not be able to have assess to the main road from the front side though it is having an access to the main road by the side of his plot of land. 3. Mr. P Nayak, learned standing counsel referring to the affidavit filed by the State respondents submits that the at first attempt, the Project Management Consultant (PMC) of JICA assisted Guwahati Water Supply Project, tried to lay it underground. But, there is a culvert allowing flow of water from the either side and it Page No.# 3/4 was observed that the pipe line shall obstruct natural flow of water causing flood in the adjacent locality of Bhaskar Nagar and Sahab Tila. Following public complaints of the locality, the alignment was cancelled. Finally, after several joint site visit with PIU (Project Implementation Unit), PWD, and PMC (Project Management Consultant), it was decided to lay the pipeline over ground, without causing hindrance to public. 4. However, Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel referring to the report submitted, in this regard by the Deputy Project Management Consultant argues that in fact, it is not a case that there no feasibility of the shifting of the said pipe from over ground to underground and it is their concern of the authority that it involves additional costs as well as the 60% of the road is to be bariegated etc. inasmuch dismantling of the over ground pipe shall effect the water supply to the area and water supply shall remain disrupted for a period of 7 to 10 days. Accordingly, Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel submits that it is not a report that it is not absolutely feasible to make it underground, however, the expert themselves have expressed their opinion that it can be made underground subject to such cost. Therefore, they shall consider the case of the petitioner which involves his right to life and livelihood. Accordingly, he submits that the authorities have not yet taken any call on the report and therefore, they may be asked to consider the grievance of the petitioner and take a decision in this regard. 5. It is an admitted position that the pipe is laid over ground over Govt. Land. According to the authorities, they did so after considering feasibility and technical issue. This court, in the given fact of pleadings, cannot issue a writ to shift the over ground pipe or to direct the same to be made underground inasmuch as it is the authority who is to take a call balancing equity. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Jal Board, Ganeshguri, Guwahati, Assam along with this order. The decision be taken within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of this order and the copy of Page No.# 4/4 representation. 7. It is needless to say that the authorities are at liberty to take all the relevant materials into consideration, however, this order should not be treated as a comment on right and claim of either of the parties i.e. the petitioner as well as Jal Board. 8. This disposes the writ petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant