1. Suit for enforcement of an interim order passed by a Tribunal constituted under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 542
1997(4) Supreme 368
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., S.B. Majmudar and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu -Plaintiff
versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. -Defendants
Original Suit No. 1 of 1992
With
I.A. No. 6 of 1996
Decided on 21-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, K. Parasaran, A.K. Ganguli, C.S. Vaidyanathan, F.S. Nariman, A.B. Diwan, S.S. Javali, A.S. Namibiar, Sr. Advs., E.C. Agrawala, A. Subba Rao, G. Umapathy, M.R. Janardhana, P. Mahale, Mohan Katarki, Sharma, Syed Naqvi, Shambhu Prasad, S.V. Mahale, W.A. Qadri, S.N. Terdol, V.K. Veeran, Gaurav Banerjee, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ramesh Singh, Ms. Rakhi Verma, Ms. Shanta Vasudevan and P.K. Manohar, Advocates.
The Court referred the suit to a Constitution Bench to determine whether a suit for the enforcement of an interim order of an Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunal is maintainable under Article 262 of the Constitution and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.
Headnote:Water Dispute-Water disputes regarding inter-state river Cauvery-By Notification dated 2.6.1990, Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted-Interim orders passed-Suit filed seeking enforcement of Tribunal s interim order dated 25.6.1991-Suit involves substantial question of law as to interpretation of Constitution-It will be appropriate if this suit is heard and decided by a Constitution Bench of this Court-Efforts being made to bring an amicable settlement between parties. (Paras 7 & 8)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of a suit for enforcement of a Tribunal's interim order under Article 262 of the Constitution and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. (Para 5 )
3. The suit involves a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution. (Para 8 )
4. Suits involving substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution are appropriate for determination by a Constitution Bench. (Para 8 )
5. The suit is referred to a Constitution Bench for adjudication. (Para 8 )
6. Under what circumstances is a suit referred to a Constitution Bench?
A suit is referred to a Constitution Bench when it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. (Para 8 )
ORDER
By judgment dated 4.5.1990 in Writ Petition No. 13347 of 1983, this Court directed the Central Government to notify in the official gazette the constitution of an appropriate Tribunal for the adjudication of water dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants.
2. By Notification dated 2.6.1990, a Tribunal namely; Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) was constituted for adjudicating the water disputes regarding the inter-State river Cauvery and the river valley thereof. After the said Notification, interim application was filed by the plaintiff before the Tribunal praying for the following reliefs :
(a) direct the State of Karnataka not to impound or utilise water of Cauvery river beyond the extent impounded or utilised by them as on 31.5.1972, as agreed to by the Chief Ministers of the basin States and the Union Minister for Irrigation and Powers, that day; and
(b) pass an order of injunction restraining the State of Karnataka from undertaking any new projects, dams, reservoirs, canals, etc., and/or from proceeding further with the construction of projects, dams, reservoirs, canal etc., in the course of River Cauvery or its tributaries except with the consent of Tamil Nadu or with the specific directions of this Hon ble Tribunal; and
(c) pass such further or other orders as this Hon ble Tribunal may be pleased to in the interest of justice.
3. By order dated 5.1.1991, the Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid application as in its opinion, it could not decide the disputes not referred to it including the dispute regarding grant of interim relief. The plaintiff, thereafter filed Civil Appeal Nos. 303-304 of 1991 against the said order. This Court by judgment dated 26.4.1991 set-aside the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal and directed it to decide afresh the interim application on merits.
4. The Tribunal then on 25.6.1991 passed interim orders, inter alia, directing the State of Karnataka to release water from its reservoirs in Karnataka so as to ensure that 205 TMC of water was available in Tamil Nadu s Mettur Reservoir in a year from June to May. In that year, the order was to be effective from 1.7.1991. It also directed the defendants herein to regulate release of water in the following manner :
June 10.16 TMC December 10.37 TMC
July 42.76 TMC January 2.51 TMC
August 54.72 TMC February 2.17 TMC
September 29.36 March 2.40 TMC TMC
October 30.17 TMC April 2.32 TMC
November 16.05 May 2.01 TMC TMC
5. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 14.5.1992 principally seeking the enforcement of the Tribunal s interim order dated 25.6.1991. By order dated 7.9.1995, this Court framed the following issues :
"(1) Whether in view of the provisions contained in Article 262 of the Constitution of India and Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, the suit is not maintainable?
(2) Whether, a suit for enforcement of an interim order of the Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunal (constituted under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956) is a suit relating to a water dispute ? If yes, what is its effect ?
(3) Whether, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 13 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked unless the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal has recorded a finding that there has been a violation of its order dated 25.6.1991 and/or 3.4.1992?
(4) Whether, by the order dated 3.4.1992 the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal can be said to have modified its order dated 25.6.1991 under Section 5(3) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 ? If yes, what is its effect ?
(5) Whether, it is open to the State of Karnataka to unilaterally reduce the monthly release of water required to be made as per the order dated 25.6.1991 read with order dated 3.4.1992 under
