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.
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 d
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.