The Bombay High Court on Tuesday asked the State to spell out whether any “immediate action” plan was in place to “tide over” water crisis in May and June.
The Division Bench of Justices V.M. Kanade and M.S. Karnik asked for this information during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) by Loksatta Movement which points out that the State is reeling under its worst spell of drought and is facing acute water shortage with the level in dams and lakes going down due to the deficit of 23% rainfall recorded last year. On October 2, officially the end of monsoon, Mumbai’s water stocks stood at a five-year low of 11.43 million litres, down from 14.05 million litres at the same time last year.
On April 13, the same bench had ordered all Indian Premier League (IPL) matches scheduled after April 30 to be shifted out of the State. On Tuesday, the court said merely shifting IPL out was not sufficient and sought to know what the State proposes to do for the month of May and June.
The court also asked for details oflong term and short term proposals to tackle water shortage and said, “We are at a stage where there is no large scale relief provided to drought affected areas.”
Acting Advocate-General (AG) Rohit Deo informed the court that there are 29,600 villages are drought-affected in the State, to which the Bench inquired why has a drought not been declared in the State.
The A-G replied that all measures to be taken in a drought like situation have already been taken. The court interrupted him by asking, “Are you giving an undertaking that all those areas affected with drought are receiving drinking water on a daily basis?”
The HC then asked if any help can be sought from the Centre to which, Mr Deo replied that Rs 2,564 crore have already been given by the Centre. The HC said they will hear the matter every week, even during court vacations, to monitor the situation. The Bench remarked, “We have to treat this as an extraordinary situation and want to know if the State can tide over the month of May and June.” The court also asked the State if directions in the drought manual are followed before adjourning the matter to May 5.
Asks State if directions in
the drought manual have been followed
