Friends of Bharathapuzha v. State of Kerala and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ## **`TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 25TH MAGHA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 15940 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** **FRIENDS OF BHARATHAPUZHA,REG. NO. PKD/CA/391/2019, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR. E. SREEDHARAN, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT GOVARDHAN, NHANGATIRI.P.O,PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. PIN - 679 303.** **BY ADVS. V.K.REMA SMRITHI** - **K.SANDESH RAJA** **SHANKAR** **`V.`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1.THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. ``` ``` 2.UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003. ``` ``` 3.CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, 3RD FLOOR (SOUTH), SEWA BHAWAN, R.K. PURAM, SECTOR-1 NEW DELHI - 110066. ``` ``` 4.IRRIGATION & WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. ``` ``` 5.PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPLEX, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. ``` ## **`6.DISTRICT DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY,`** ``` REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON, DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD-678013. ``` ``` 7.DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD,KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD-678013. ``` ``` 8.CENTRE FOR WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN – 673 571. ``` ``` 9.SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,OFFICER IN CHARGE) IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, MALAMPUZHA IRRIGATION DIVISION OFFICE, MALAMPUZHA SP LINE ROAD, PALAKKAD. PIN – 678 651. ``` ## **`10.DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE,`** ``` REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE CHANGE (DOECC), 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ``` ## **`11.DEVELOPMENT STANDING COMMITTEE,`** ``` 13TH WORKING GROUP ON ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION, DISASTER MANAGEMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE AND BIODIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, ANAKKARA PANCHAYAT, ANAKKARA-676 551. ``` ``` SRI.TEK CHAND V, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MANU S., DSG OF INDIA ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Murali Purushothaman, J.** Friends of Bharathapuzha, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with the main objective of rejuvenating Bharathapuzha river, represented by its President, Dr. E. Sreedharan, a world renowned engineer, has approached this Court espousing the 'menace created on the flow of the river due to the unscientific and ill thought out constructions being made on the river in particular the Kottakadavu regulator which is being built very close to the confluence of the Bharathapuzha and its tributary Thoothapuzha'. 2.According to the petitioner, large number of dams, illplanned regulators and check dams have been built on the Bharathapuzha river and its tributaries, which have completely distorted and disturbed the flow of the river. 3.The petitioner states that, a regulator (Koottakadavu regulator) across Bharathapuzha river is being built at **WP(c) 15940 of 2022 3** Kottakadavu in Anakkara Panchayat, Palakkad district under the aegis of the Irrigation and Water Resources Department and the Public works Department in an unscientific manner causing much harm and hardship rather than any much needed solace to the residents or farmers of the area. It is stated that the site for the regulator is about 500m downstream of the junction where Thuthapuzha joins Bharathapuzha and at this location, there is a constricted neck in the river and Bharathapuzha in this location has a width of around 350 mtrs and Thuthapuzha has a width of about 60 mtrs before they combine and the volume and flow of the combined waters is large and forceful. The petitioner states that the Koottakadavu regulator has been designed to have 21 Nos of piers of which 19 piers of 1 ½ meters have already been built and there are 18 gaps between the piers with 12 meter shutters to be fitted between them. According to the petitioner, the total water way provided in the regulator is only 234 meters which is the physical width, but during floods, piers which are 1.5m **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **4** in width cause a further squeeze of 1 to 1.5m in each span due to water velocity within the span and therefore the effective vent way width available for the flood waters is only about 200m and this reduced vent way of 200 meters cannot evacuate the combined floods of Bharathapuzha and Thuthapuzha with the result flood waters will head up and over flow the left bank as it happened during the floods in 2018 and 2019. The petitioner points out that the flood inundations maps of District Disaster Management Authority, Palakkad shows the impugned area around the Koottakadavu regulator as high risk area and contends that the added influence of the regulator therefore will aggravate the flooding and cause greater damage than what is already predicted by the District Disaster Management Authority. 4. According to the petitioner, the Committee on Environment (2017-2019), in the 5[th] report placed before the Kerala Legislative Assembly on 23[rd] August, 2017, made severe criticism on the unmitigated check dams built across the Bharathapuzha and the Committee in their findings **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **5** concluded that, part of the steep decline of the river was due to the unchecked constructions across and on the river banks. 5. It is stated that, pursuant to a meeting by the President of the petitioner society with the Hon'ble Minister for Irrigation and Water Resources and officers of the various departments involved in the design and building of the regulator and dams on the Bharathapuzha, on 09.10.2019, a decision was taken to set up a team of experts to study the changes needed to the Koottakadavu regulator to prevent further flooding during heavy rains or any such events. However, in the meantime, reports came out that work was going to commence on the Koottakadavu regulator based on the existing plan itself. Though the petitioner society suggested to the authorities to increase the length of the regulator by another 3 or 4 vent ways on the left bank so as avoid the flooding like in 2018/2019, there was no response. Meanwhile the petitioner came to know from newspapers that the stalled Koottakadavu **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **6** Regulator Projects across Bharathapuzha at Kudallur would now be taken up for completion. The petitioner apprehends that, the Kottakadavu regulator project would now be completed as per the original plans, without the bottleneck that clearly exists at the site being eased. The petitioner contends that, if the work is resumed on the regulator without making detailed study and suitable design changes, a flood situation as in 2018 and 2019 will affect the area and cause undue damage. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for direction to the respondents to stop the construction of the Koottakadavu regulator at the present location where the Bharathapuzha and the Thoothapuzha converge or in the alternative to issue direction to the respondents to make appropriate changes to the design of the impugned regulator so as to facilitate the smooth flow of the river causing minimum effect to the river banks and consequently to the people living in the towns and villages near them and to declare that the Bharathapuzha and its tributaries are legal entities and they have a right to flow **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **7** and live without being exploited by illegal activities committed upon by the State or its agencies or by any other person. 6. A detailed Statement has been filed on behalf of the Secretary, Water Resources Department, the 4[th] respondent. It is stated that out of 44 rivers in Kerala, e-flow is currently being maintained only in the river periyar and for the rivers like Bharathapuzha, e-flow will be possible only by constructing dams and regulators and by the construction of these structures in regular intervals of river stretches water can be stored during rainy season and a minimum specific discharge can be allowed during summer season to maintain e-flow. These structures will help ground water recharge and the rise in water table in the nearby areas and the stored water can also be used for irrigation and drinking water supply schemes on both banks of the river. The regulators are barriers constructed across the direction of water flow on rivers and streams for the purpose of water conservation and they reduce erosion, lower the speed of **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **8** water flow during the storm and possibly reduce the damages due to flash flood. Regulators retain excess water flow during monsoon rains in the catchment area behind the structure. It is stated that there are two types of storage structures that are built across rivers in Kerala namely: Check dams and Regulators. The check dams are comparatively cheaper in construction, but they have the disadvantage of limited storage depth and permanent obstruction to flow of water. The regulators on the other hand can regulate the water level in the river with the help of mechanical shutters which can be opened above maximum flood level. In order to keep Bharathappuzha healthy by ensuring the environmental flow, series of barriers are necessary and Kootakkadavu regulator is one of them. 7.The 4[th] respondent further states that, the project proposal for Koottakadavu regulator was taken up and approved after the verification of several detailed investigations and the site was so chosen in order to reach **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **9** the maximum benefits to the beneficiaries at both banks of the river and the farmers depending on the Lift Irrigation Schemes at Koottakadavu, Pattithara, Anakkara etc. and drinking water supply schemes. Further, the site is picked with a vision in mind that, Thoothappuzha, which is a tributary of Bharathappuzha will also be benefited from the heading up of water once the regulator is functioning. 8. It is stated that the Koottakkadavu regulator was designed by IDRB, Thiruvananthapuram which is the central design organisation of the Irrigation Department, Government of Kerala approved by the Central Water Commission. It is stated that the Koottakkadavu regulator is designed as per the relevant Indian Standard CodesIS.6966 and as per the Manual of Barrages & weirs on permeable foundation published by CBIP. This design by IDRB has been vetted by the HOD of Civil Engineering Department, Government Engineering College, Thrissur. It is further stated that the Regulators on the upstream of Koottakkadavu regulator designed by IDRB years back **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **10** remain safe and stable during floods and there was no flooding on the upstream of these regulators during the floods of 2018 and 2019 and that the Irrigation Department has constructed regulators across many major rivers in Kerala and these regulators are serving the purposes very well and flooding has not been reported in the upstream of these regulators due to their presence. The 4[th] respondent, in the Statement asserts that Koottakkadavu regulator is a well planned project designed conforming to relevant Indian standard codes and as per the guidelines published by Central Board of Irrigation and Power. The 4[th] respondent refers to Clause: 4.1.3.8 of the Manual of Barrages and weirs on permeable foundation published by CBIP which reads as under: “Clause: 4.1.3.8 Confluence of Tributaries: The location of the diversion structure should generally be below the confluence of the main tributary of the river.” According to the 4[th] respondent, the Koottakkadavu regulator is designed considering the discharge of both Bharathappuzha and its tributary Thoothapuzha and sufficient **WP(c) 15940 of 2022 11** vent way has been provided to evacuate combined floods of both the rivers. 9. With regard to the location of the regulator, it is stated that the site for the regulator is chosen based on detailed investigations and after studying the topographical features and land profile of the site. The 4[th] respondent refers to Clauses: 4.1.3.1 and 4.1.3.8 of the manual of Barrages and weirs on permeable foundation published by CBIP which read as under: “Clause: 4.1.3.1 A narrow gorge may reduce the length of the structure, but due to greater velocity and depth of flow, heavier sections may need to be provide. On the other hand, a wider river section may induce siltation due to reduced velocity besides necessitating construction of longer tie bonds. Clause: 4.1.3.8 Confluence of Tributaries: The location of the diversion structure should generally be below the confluence of the main tributary of the river.” It is stated that considering the topographical features, land **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **12** profile at the site, tidal effects and economy, the location of the structure below the confluence of the tributary was found suitable for the construction of diversion works. The Statement refers to two regulators, Velliyamkallu RCB and Chenganamkunnu constructed by Irrigation Department in Bharathappuzha River at the upstream of Koottakkadavu regulator designed by the IDRB wing of Irrigation Department and states that the average width of river course at Velliyamkallu RCB site and Chenganamkunnu Regulator site is 300m and width of river just downstream and upstream of these regulators is more than 400m and that even during the floods of 2018 and 2019, these regulators were safe and stable and these schemes have not been a cause for any disaster. 10. It is stated that during the design process of the regulator, it was ensured that the opening between the piers and abutments is sufficient to transfer the design discharge and since the Regulator at Koottakkadavu is designed conforming to the relevant Indian Standard specifications, **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **13** the sufficiency of waterway is ensured. It is also stated that the regulator was designed for 19 piers and two abutments for a length of 273m in which 18 vent ways are provided with 12m and 2 vent ways at ends with 9.1m to store water to a height of 3m and therefore, a total of 234.20m clear water way is provided for the regulator. The percentage reduction in the area of cross section for flow comes to 10.85% and afflux due to this reduction is within the permissible limits. According to the 4[th] respondent, the vent way provided is sufficient to evacuate the combined floods of Bharathappuzha and Thoothapuzha. 11. Referring to the floods in 2018 and 2019, it is stated that Bharathappuzha was flooded and caused many damages at many river banks very heavily, but Koottakkadavu regulator is not the cause for flooding in the area. It was a natural disaster that affected not only the nearby locations of Koottakadavu regulator but also the entire state of Kerala. 12. It is further stated that a meeting was convened **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **14** by Hon'ble Minister for Water Resources on 02.10.2019 in which Dr. E. Sreedharan, the President of the petitioner Society and the Secretary, Water Resources Department were present and as per the decision in the meeting, the design was modified such that the shutters were positioned to a height above the maximum flood level observed in the 2019 flood ie.14.250 m. instead of the initially proposed MFL of 12.25 m. It is stated that the adequacy of the various provisions in the drawings and the feasibility of the proposal as a whole were verified with respect to the 2018/2019 post flood site conditions and found satisfactory and the design has been vetted by Government Engineering College, Thrissur. Denying the contention of the petitioner that the regulator scheme is going to be replaced with check dam, it is stated that there is no plan to convert the regulator at Koottakkadavu into check dam since check dam being a permanent obstruction in the river, it will be inconvenient to control the flow when there is a requirement to regulate the flow. The flow through the regulator can be controlled by **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **15** operating the shutters and a check dam is not suitable at the proposed site. 13. It is stated that though the original design of the regulator was done conforming to the relevant Indian Standard specifications-IS.6966., Manual of barrages & weirs on permeable foundation published by CBIP etc, the design was further reviewed considering the provisions corresponding to the post flood situation of 2018 and 2019 and suggestions of Dr. E. Sreedharan in the meeting held in the chamber of Hon'ble Minister for Water Resources. The 4[th] respondent further states that, in order to alleviate the fear and concerns of the local population, protection wall was proposed at locations where bank height is insufficient and additionally, the design was vetted by the Department of Civil Engineering, Government Engineering College, Thrissur and found the provisions to be satisfactory and conforming to the Indian Standard Codes. 14. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner contesting and rebutting the contentions of the 4[th] respondent in the **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **16** Statement. The petitioner has stated that the contention of the 4[th] respondent that e-flow of the river can be maintained only by building more dams and regulators is regressive and that the regulator at Koottakadavu is being built without any proper planning or proper understanding of the area and without taking the river as a composite whole. 15. The learned Government Pleader has filed a Memo as per order dated 29.11.2022 producing supporting documents to the Statement of facts filed by the 4[th] respondent, including the copy of the vetting report of the Department of Civil Engineering, Government Engineering College, Thrissur. 16. Heard Smt. Rema Smrithi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Tek Chand V., the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1,4 to 7,9 and 10 and Sri. S. Manu, Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents 2 and 3. 17. The averments of the petitioner in the writ petition itself will show that, at the time of filing the writ petition, **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **17** the impugned regulator construction has reached about 70% progress with all piers and abutment 80% completed. In the order dated 29.11.2022, this Court has recorded the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that as on the said date, 75% of the construction of the regulator was completed. In **Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India** [2000 (10) SCC 664: AIR 2000 SC 3751: 2000 KHC 1685], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “229. It is now well settled that the courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy making process and the courts are ill equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. The court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people's fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution. Even then any challenge to such a policy decision must **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **18** be before the execution of the project is undertaken. Any delay in the execution of the project means overrun in costs and the decision to undertake a project, if challenged after its execution has commenced, should be thrown out at the very threshold on the ground of laches if the petitioner had the knowledge of such a decision and could have approached the court at that time. Just because a petition is termed as a PIL does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation will not apply. Laches is one of them. (emphasis supplied) In the light of the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petition filed at this belated stage cannot be entertained and has to be dismissed for laches. 18. The President of the petitioner Society is a world renowned engineer stated to have been involved in most of India's mega infrastructure projects and an established expert in his field. The petitioner also claims that there are other renowned experts as its members. As held in **Narmada** **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **19** **Bachao Andolan** (supra), whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of functions of the Government. When the project for the regulator is approved by the Government after detailed investigations and studies and the 'vent way' and 'design' vetted by the Department of Civil Engineering, Government Engineering College, Thrissur, suggestions made by the members of the petitioner society cannot have precedence over the decisions taken by the Government. Even so, with due regard to the suggestions of Dr. E. Sreedharan, the President of the petitioner Society, the design was modified such that the shutters were positioned to a height above the maximum flood level observed in the 2019 flood instead of the one initially proposed. 19.The petitioner does not have a case that the decision of the Government in the construction of regulator is tainted by malafides or abuse of power. A project which is approved after due deliberation cannot be interfered with just because **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **20** the petitioner contends that such a decision should not have been taken because they have opposite view against the undertakings of the project. It is apposite to extract paragraphs 233 and 234 of the decision in **Narmada Bachao Andolan** (supra) which read as under: " 233.At the same time, in exercise of its enormous power the Court should not be called upon to or undertake Governmental duties or functions. The Courts cannot run the Government nor can the administration indulge in abuse or non - use of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The role of the higher judiciary under the Constitution casts on it a great obligation as the sentinel to defend the values of the Constitution and the rights of Indians. The Courts must, therefore, act within their power judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has been consistently held by this Court that in matters of policy the Court will not interfere. When there is a valid law requiring the Government to act in a particular manner the Court ought to, without striking down the law, give any direction which is not in accordance with law. In other words, the Court itself is not above the law." "234.In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government, the Courts should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **21** the Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in the public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas which are the functions of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation the Court should refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertakings of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government, is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the Court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision." (emphasis supplied) ## 20. In **Federation of Railway Officers Association v.** **Union of India** [2003 KHC 963:(2003)4 SCC 289:AIR 2003 SC 1344], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “12. In examining a question of this nature where a policy is evolved by the Government judicial review thereof is limited. When policy according to which or the **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **22** purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. On matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise Court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of the power, the Court will not interfere with such matters. (emphasis supplied) The Court does not have technical expertise to overrule the technical opinion given by the Engineers of the Government and approved by the Department of Civil Engineering, Government Engineering College, Thrissur. The decision as to whether a regulator has to be constructed and where it has to be constructed are the functions of the Executive. In the matter of allocation of water from Sardar Sarovar Project to the District of Kuchchh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Kuchchh Jal Sankat Nivas Samiti and others v. State of Gujarath and others** [2013 KHC 4548:AIR 2013 **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **23** ## SC 2657: (2013)12 SCC 226] held as follows:- “9. We have given our most anxious consideration to the rival submissions and we find substance in the submission of Mr. Diwan. We are conscious of the fact that there is wide separation of powers between the different limbs of the State and, therefore, it is expected of this Court to exercise judicial restraint and not encroach upon the executive or legislative domain. What the appellants in substance are asking this Court to do is to conduct a comparative study and hold that the policy of distribution of water is bad. We are afraid, we do not have the expertise or wisdom to analyse the same. It entails intricate economic choices and though this Court tends to believe that it is expert of experts but this principle has inherent limitation. True it is that the court is entitled to analyse the legal validity of the different means of distribution but it cannot and will not term a particular policy as fairer than the other. We are of the opinion that the matters affecting the policy and requiring technical expertise be better left to the decision of those who are entrusted and qualified to address the **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **24** same. This Court shall step in only when it finds that the policy is inconsistent with the Constitutional laws or arbitrary or irrational. 10. Candidly speaking, we do not have the expertise to lay down policy for distribution of water within the State. It involves collection of various data which is variable and many a times policy formulated will have political overtones. It may require a political decision with which the Court has no concern so long it is within the Constitutional limits. Even if we assume that this Court has the expertise, it will not encroach upon the field earmarked for the executive. If the policy of the Government, in the opinion of the sovereign, is unreasonable, the remedy is to disapprove the same during election. In respect of policy, the Court has very limited jurisdiction. A dispute, in our opinion, shall not be appropriate for adjudication by this Court when it involves multiple variable and interlocking factors, decision on each of which has bearing on others. While disposing of an interlocutory application in this very appeal by order dated 22nd of July, 2011, this Court **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **25** observed as follows: "We are of the opinion that the prayer for allocation of adequate water in Kuchchh district is not one which can be a matter of judicial review. It is for the executive authorities to look into this matter. As held by this Court in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Another v. Chander Hass and Another, 2008 (1) SCC 683, there must be judicial restraint in such matters." 11. We are in respectful agreement with the view aforesaid. 12. The State of Gujarat emphasized the need of more water for the District of Kutch before the Tribunal and projected all those pleas which have been projected before us by the appellants but the same did not find favour with the Tribunal and the Tribunal allocated 9.00 MAF water instead of 22.02 MAF water claimed before the Tribunal. Therefore, they were left with little amount of water. In the face of it, less amount of water than what has been claimed by the appellants was allocated for the District of Kutch. The allocation of water is a matter of policy and how much water is to be released from the canal and for that matter a particular area or how much water is to be left with other regions, in our opinion, are matters which require delicate balancing and consideration of complex social and economic consideration. In our view, there being no judicially manageable standards, it shall be appropriate to leave it **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **26** to be decided by the experts of the irrigation ” management system and water resources management. (emphasis supplied) The decision as to whether a regulator has to be constructed in Bharathapuzha river and where it has to be constructed are the functions of the Executive and we are satisfied that the project has been conceived and is being executed after due deliberations taking into account all pros and cons of the matter by the Government. There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- ## **S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/-** **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, JUDGE** **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **27** ## **APPENDIX** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF FRIENDS OF BHARATHAPUZHA DATED 13.07.2019. ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE OF KOOTTAKADAVU REGULATOR DATED NIL. Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE HALF CONSTRUCTED REGULATOR AT KUTTAKADAVU SHOWINGTHECONFLUENCEOFTHE BHARATHPUZHA AND THUTHAPUZHA DATED NIL. Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE FLOOD INUNDATION MAPS BY THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY DATED NIL. Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF ANALYSIS REPORT OF FLOODS 2018 AND 2019 BY SRI. VENU GOPALAN NAIR. Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF 5TH REPORT OF THE LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY23RDAUGUST 2017,COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT (2016-2019) ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF RELEVANT PORTIONS. ``` ``` Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT, HINDU (PALAKKAD EDITION 16.07.2021). Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING WITH HON'BLE MINISTER FOR IRRIGATION AND WATER RESOURCE DATED 09.10.2019 AND ITS TRANSLATION. ``` ``` Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF LETTER TO IRRIGATION MINISTER DATED 04.07.2021. Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 16.07.2021 MALAYALA MANORAMA (PALAKKAD EDITION ALONG WITH TRANSLATION). ``` **WP(c) 15940 of 2022** **28** ``` Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF LETTER TO HON'BLE IRRIGATION MINISTER DATED 26.07.2021. Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT ALONG WITH TRANSLATION IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY PALAKKAD EDITION DATED 20.11.2021. ``` ``` Exhibit P13COPY OF PRESS RELEASE FROM THE MINISTRY OF JAL SAKTHI 16-12-2021. Exhibit P14COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE REPORT OF THE KERALA FLOODS, 2018, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT (NIDM), 2020. ``` ``` Exhibit P15COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE REPORT OF CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER, 2018. ``` ## **spc/**