The act has given away a substantial amount of power in the hands of the authorities, by way of delegated legislation. It’s important to have sub delegations and it is equally important to have guidelines & measures to prevent corruption.
- Appointment of the authorities: There is not much of detailed description about the appointment and meetings of the committee. it’s left to the discretion of the government.
- Sec.9: which is for notification of the area for development, control and regulation. According to the sec 9, the authority shall provisionally notify an area which the authority thinks fit, within a month from the notification date authority has to invite public representation. There is no clear definition of public representation, that is a minimum number of person constituting a public representation, how such representation has to be heard etc is not defined. government has to make rules for the same. It would have been better if there was an guidelines for forming the rules in respect of public hearing.
- Punishment is too little, the offenders would prefer to pay a fine and continue their business.
The act would literally have a very little impact on the preventing the misuse/commercial use of the ground water.
1 comments:
pls find below the times of india news article on tamilnadu groundwater:
In a ruling which is likely to have far-reaching consequences, the Madras high court has ordered the government not to allow extraction of groundwater for commercial purposes till the Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Act 2003 is notified.
A division bench comprising Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice D Hariparanthaman said: "In order to protect the groundwater from persons using it for commercial purposes and making profits from farmers, who in turn are suffering water scarcity for agricultural and drinking purposes, and also in the interest of the public, we consider it appropriate to direct the government not to allow any person to draw and sell groundwater till the notification is issued."
The judges pointed out that though the act was framed and published in the gazette on March 4, 2003, for the past eight years no action has been taken by the government to notify the legislation and put its provisions into effect.
Private water tanker owners and bottling units catering to the needs of Chennai are dependent on wells and borewells on agricultural lands lying in Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur regions.
The 2003 act provided for constitution of a groundwater authority comprising top officials and persons with special knowledge in groundwater exploration. The authority was to have powers to notify areas for development, control and regulation of groundwater. The act mandated that every user in notified areas must obtain a registration certificate from the authority.
The act prohibited sinking of wells as well as transportation of groundwater without permission from the authority. Carrying on the business of sinking wells in notified areas without a licence too was to be prohibited. The authority was to monitor the groundwater mining and issue directions for suitable disposal of the mined water.
The matter reached the court when some Tirupur-based water distributors filed a writ petition seeking to restrain the authorities from obstructing extraction wells located on patta lands and supplying water through tanker lorries for domestic and drinking purposes in Tirupur and Palladam areas. A single judge had allowed the plea, and dismissed some petitions from people who wanted to be impleaded as parties.
The present writ appeal was filed by Poomani and Paramasivan of Tirupur.
In July 2009, a division bench asked the government advocate to ascertain the status of the act, which was yet to be notified despite being published in the gazette. On January 8, 2011, the present bench sought to know whether the government had complied with the earlier order and implemented the act.
When the bench was informed that the government needed more time to bring in comprehensive amendments to the act and notify it, the judges said: "Though the act was of the year 2003, and seven years have lapsed, the government has not chosen to notify the implementation of the act for reasons best known to it."
Pointing out that the authorities were seeking more time in spite of two court orders, the judges asked the government not to allow anyone to draw groundwater for commercial purposes in the state. They then adjourned the matter after four weeks for further hearing.
Post a Comment