2017 C L C Note 203
[Sindh]
Before Nadeem Akhtar and Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, JJ
SIKANDAR ALI SHAIKH---Petitioner
Versus
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CBC through Sharoom Safdar Khattak and 2 others--Respondents
C.P. No. D-6644 of 2014 and C.M.As. Nos. 29528, 2350 of 2016, decided on 1st March, 2017.
Constitution of Pakistan------Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Water crises---Supply of water---Petitioner was
aggrieved of shortage of water supply by municipal authorities in his area---Validity---Water
crises was a situation where available potable and unpolluted water within a region was less
than that region's demand---Water crises could be the result of two mechanisms; (i) physical
or absolute water shortage; and (ii) economic water shortage---Physical water scarcity was the
result of inadequate natural water resources to cater demand of a region---Economic scarcity
of water was a result of poor management of sufficiently available water resources---Residents
of the city were facing scarcity of water not because of physical but also due to economic water
shortage---Bulk water supply to the city could not be completed, as such citizens were facing
acute physical shortage of water for the city--- Rest of municipal authorities were dependent
on their share in bulk water supply of Water and Sewerage Board, therefore, they were also
facing physical water shortage regarding which they were helpless---Earlier the municipal
authorities filed statement admitting their responsibility for the supply of water to residents and
in their statement, they committed that they would issue coupons to residents on online
applications for five water bowsers (of 1000 gallons) on per month per property basis---Such
was reasonable extent and during water stress situation 5 water bowsers to each property should
be available---Same water management scheme should be extended to petitioner as being the
resident of the municipal limits, he could not be given preferential treatment---Constitutional
Petition was disposed of accordingly. [Paras. 8 & 10 of the judgment]
Petitioner in person.
Sohail H.K. Rana for Respondent No.1/CBC.
Altamash Arab for alleged Contemnor along with Arfeen Minhas, Additional CEO,
Cantonment Board Clifton.
Date of hearing: 1st March, 2017.
ORDER
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner filed the instant petition against the
respondents to supply water i.e. 4000 gallons of water per week instead of sanctioned 2000
gallons of water per week to the petitioner through water bowsers on alternate day. The instant
petition was allowed vide order dated 18-8-2015. As per the petitioner, the respondent No. 1
did not comply with the said order and they have falsely stated that they increased water supply
to the petitioner up to a reasonable extent. According to him, the respondent No. 1 committed
perjury on this account. On the other hand, the petitioner also contended that as the said
respondent flouted the order of this Court, therefore, they committed contempt of court and he
requested to take action against him.
2. We have heard the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. We
have also scanned the record of the instant petition as well as a similar petition bearing C.P.
No.4747 of 2016 about related issues.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are required to supply 4000 gallons
of water per week and if they could not do so during the period of shortage, they have an
obligation to increase supply of water to him considerably. According to him, their contention
that they have substantially increased the supply of water is false as such they are liable to face
consequences of perjury. He also contended that as there is no shortage of water at present,
therefore, they are also required to supply him 4000 gallons of water per week. As they are not
providing water up to 4000 gallons per week, therefore, a proceeding in respect of contempt of
court be initiated against them.
4. In contrast to above, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that there is still
an acute shortage of water and even then the respondents are doing their best to obey the
direction of this court. He contended that the respondent No.1 could not fulfil the demand of
petitioner in the present circumstances. He submitted that the respondent No.1 had never
violated any directives of this Court nor they could think about the same. According to him,
the petitioner is receiving water comparatively in better quantity and this fact has already been
brought to the notice of this Court as such no question of perjury arises.
5. It is a fact that the respondent No. 1 is responsible for the supply of municipal services to
the inhabitant of Clifton Cantonment. It is also the responsibility of the respondent No. 1 to
provide water to all the residents of the area evenly without any discrimination. In the instant
matter, this Court has already passed an order, which still holds the field. We would like to
reproduce the relevant portion of the order dated 18-8-2015, which reads as under:"- - - -. We, therefore, in view of the undertaking dispose of the instant petition by
giving specific direction to the respondent No. 1 to enhance the water supply up to 4000
gallons per week, as promised, the moment the acute shortage is over However, if the
shortage persists, the respondents, as an interim arrangement, should increase the water
supply being made to the petitioner to a reasonable extent."
6. In his misery, the petitioner earlier approached this Court with a similar contempt
application as he thought that the respondent No. 1 was not supplying water as per abovereferred order. The said contempt application was heard and decided on 21-10-2015. The
operative part of the said order is reproduced as under:"We have heard the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the alleged contemnor at
some length. We agree with the contention raised by the counsel for the alleged
contemnor. In the order dated 18-8-2015 we have categorically directed the Board to
enhance the water supply of the petitioner up to 4000 gallons per week the moment
acute shortage is over but as the shortage of water is still persisting, as stated by the
learned counsel for the alleged contemnor, we would dispose of this contempt
application by directing the respondents to enhance the water supply of the petitioner
up to 4000 gallons per week, the moment water shortage is over. However; since the
shortage is still persisting the board is once again directed to increase the water supply
of the petitioner to a reasonable extent as per the directions given in the order dated 188-2015."
7. Now again, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court with the same prayer. We think
it proper to discuss something about the miseries of petitioner as well as the miseries of the
residents of Clifton Cantonment Board as well as the residents of other municipal areas of the
city of Karachi. Karachi is a city having more than 20 millions population. The city needs the
huge supply of water for the daily and routine consumption of the citizen. It is unfortunate
indeed that the government did not pay proper attention to the character of this important and
basic necessity of the citizen of Karachi. From last about two decades, no bulk fresh water
supply scheme was completed by the government. As long as, some new bulk water supply
schemes are not completed, the residents of this city have to face the problem of acute water
shortage. We have no reason to disbelieve the contention raised on behalf of the respondent
No.1 that the acute water supply shortage has not yet overcome. We are passing through a
phase of water stress, which demands the proper and immediate attention of respective
government agencies as well as the consumer of freshwater including residents of Metropolis.
8. The concept of 'water stress' is comparatively a new idea in dealing with water shortage.
The shortage of water involves water stress water scarcity or deficits and water crisis. As the
population is growing especially in urban areas, it becomes difficult of obtaining sources of
fresh water. Water shortage may be the result of rapid climate changes and altered weather
pattern as well as increasing human demand and overuse of water. Improperly planned
urbanisation has triggered the water stress to a stage where water management becomes a
serious problem and may result in the water crisis. A water crisis is a situation where the
available potable and unpolluted water within a region less than that region's demand. The
water crisis can be the result of two mechanisms; (1) physical or absolute water shortage, and
(2) economic water shortage. Physical water scarcity is the result of inadequate natural water
resources to cater the demand of a region. The Economic scarcity of water is a result of poor
management of the sufficiently available water resources. In the city of Karachi, we are facing
scarcity of water not because of physical but also due to economic water shortage. Bulk water
supply to the town of Karachi is the sole responsibility of Karachi Water and Sewerage Board.
As the new bulk water supply schemes for the city of Karachi could not be completed, as such
we are facing an acute physical shortage of water for the city. The rest of municipal authorities
of Karachi are dependents or their share in the bulk water supply of Karachi Water and
Sewerage Board; therefore, they are also facing physical water shortage regarding which they
are helpless.
9. As explained above, the Cantonment Board Clifton is getting a reduced share from the bulk
water supply to the city of Karachi, as such the residents of the area have to suffer the situation
of water stress like the residents of other municipal areas of the city. In spite of that, CBC
cannot be excused from their sole responsibility of supplying water to the households within
their territories. Realising the above situation, this Court while passing order dated 18-8-2015
and the subsequent order dated 21-10-2015, has issued conditional directives. According to the
condition imposed by the said orders; the respondent No. 1 should increase water supply to the
petitioner to a 'reasonable extent' till attaining normalcy.
10. Now the question arises, what will be the 'reasonable extent'? In this respect, this Court
has already passed a consent order based on the statement of CBC in C.P. No. D-4747 of 2016.
In the said petition, CBC filed a statement admitting their responsibility for the supply of water
to the residents. In their statement, they committed that they would issue coupons to residents
on online applications for five water bowsers (of 1000 gallons) on per month per property basis.
We think that it is the 'reasonable extent' and during water stress situation '5 water bowsers' to
each property ought to be available; and same water management scheme should be extended
to the petitioner as being the resident of the same municipal limits, he cannot be given
preferential treatment. While disposing of the above-mentioned petition, this Court has directed
as under:"A. CBC shall file compliance report on monthly basis with the MIT of this court at
least for the next six (6) months.
B. CBC shall not be entitled to charge, claim or collect water tax from the residents to
whom water is not supplied or provided through supply line or browsers.
C. CBC shall display the above-quoted statement and these directions on its website
and all notice boards with immediate effect, which shall not be removed without
permission of this Court.
D. MIT of this Court is directed to serve this order immediately to the Administration
of DHA and the President Difference Residents Association for their information."
11. We are of the view that in the situation described above, no further order can be passed in
this respect. However, the demand of the petitioner as per order dated 18-8-2015 should be
fulfilled by CBC as soon as the water stress situation is over and CBC succeeds in getting the
due share from upcoming water supply projects to the Karachi.
With these observations, the listed applications are disposed of.
MH/S-36/Sindh Order accordingly.