2002 Supreme(SC) 653

2004(5) Supreme 1
Supreme Court of India
(Under Art. 131 of the Constitution of India)
Mrs. Ruma Pal & P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.
State of Haryana -Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and Anr. -Respondents
I.A. No. 4 in Original Suit 6 of 1996
With
I.A. Nos. 1-2 Original Suit No.1 of 2003
Decided on 4-6-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Union of India : Shanti Bhushan, V.A. Bobde, Sr. Advocates, Ashok Kr. Aggarwal, AG of Haryana, K.K. Lahiri, Abhimeet Sinha, Gourav Kejriwal, Ms Minakshi Nag, Amit Patnaik, Ejaz Maqbool, Keshav Mohan, Rajesh Mittal, Advocates.
For the Respondent in I.A.No. 4 in O.S. No. 6/96 & Petitioner in O.S.No. 1/2003 : F.S. Nariman, Sr. Advocate, Harbhagwan Singh, Advocate General for State of Punjab, Arun Kathpalia, Mohan V. Katarki, Subhash Sharma, G.S. Hooda, Asst. Advocate General Punjab, Vinay K. Shailendra, R.S. Suri, Shailesh Madiyal, G.S. Sidhu, Advocates.
For the Union of India : Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Advocate, S. Wasim A. Qadri, D.S. Mahara, Ajay Sharma, Sayed Naqvi, Ms. Sushma Suri, S.N. Terdal, Advocates.
For the State of Rajasthan : Ranji Thomas, Mrs. Bharati Upadhyaya, V.N. Raghu­pathy, Advocates.
For the Union Territory of Chandigarh : Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate (NP), Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Advocate.

Important point
By refusing to comply with the decree of the Supreme Court passed under Article 131 of the Constitution not only is the offending party guilty of contempt but the very foundation of the Constitution which the people governing the State have sworn to uphold when assuming office and to which this country owes its continued existence, is shaken.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 131 -Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 -Section 14-Supreme Court Rules 1966-Order XXIII Rule 6 r/w Order XLVII Rule 6-Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966-Section 78-Apportionment of river waters made available to State of Haryana and State of Punjab-Notification issued by Union of India on 24-3-1976 dividing the river water between the two States-Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Project covering about 214 KMs was to be constructed through States of Punjab and Haryana-Out of 214 KMs, 122 KMs were to run through the territory of Punjab and 92 KMs through Haryana-Cost of completion of the canal was to be met by the Central Government-State of Punjab had not completed its share of the canal although it had been paid the amount necessary for the purpose-Suit filed by State of Haryana under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking completion of construction of canal-Suit decreed in favour of State of Haryana-Supreme Court issued a mandatory injunction directing State of Punjab to complete construction of ­canal and make it functional-State of Punjab filed a suit to declare that decree passed is not binding or enforceable-State of Haryana filed an application for rejection of plaint-Haryana has asked for enforcement of decree-Directions issued accordingly.

       Held : Punjab was required to complete the canal by 15th January, 2003 by the decree. Instead of accepting the decree in good grace, every possible step has been taken to thwart the decree. The minutes of the meetings and the correspondence exchanged between the parties during this period shows that the State of Punjab did not comply with this Court’s directives. (Para 91)

       The Constitution provides for an ordered polity within this country to promote integrity of the country. When disputes arise between States there are usually political underpinnings. The resolution of such a dispute in favour of one party will invariably have a political impact. Article 131 of the Constitution has therefore given this Court the exclusive jurisdiction to decide such a dispute strictly on legal considerations and in keeping with the provisions of the Constitution. To resist the execution of the decree on the ground that it would have a political fall out would result in subversion of the Constitution, an endorsement of anarchy and the disintegration of the country. Apart from rendering the provisions of Article 131 a dead letter such a stand is contrary to Article 144 which requires all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. It is not in the circumstances expected, that Governments whether at the Centre or in the States, will not comply with the decree of this Court. By refusing to comply with the decree of this Court under Article 131 not only is the offending party guilty of contempt but the very foundation of the Constitution which the people governing the State have sworn to uphold when assuming office and to which this country owes its continued existence, is shaken. It is, we repeat, the Constitutional duty of those who wield power in the States to create the appropriate political climate to ensure a respect for the constitutional processes and not set such processes at naught only to gain political mileage. (Para 93)

       These observations appositely reflect what can be said with regard to the conduct of the State of Punjab. In any event there is now no question of deferring Haryana’s application for execution because the suit itself, namely, O.S. No. 1 of 2003 has been dismissed. The vague plea relating to the possible rise of militancy by the construction of the canal is not an acceptable defence at all. The fact that a letter of complaint has been filed under Section 3 of the 1956 Act is immaterial as that pertains to a water dispute within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the 1956 Act and we have already held that the construction of SYL canal is not a water dispute within the meaning of the 1956 Act read with Article 262 of the Constitution. We have already held that the decree cannot be said to be a nullity. In any event this is not a question which can be raised while opposing an application for execution. What remains of Punjab’s opposition is its submission that the application of Haryana is not maintainable under the 1954 order. The 1954 Order has been issued by the President in exercise of powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution. Punjab’s objection to the maintainability of Haryana’s application for execution because of alleged non-compliance with paragraph 2(d) of the 1954 Order is unsus­tainable. (Paras 94 and 95)

       The decree passed by this Court under Article 131 being an original proceeding would not be covered by clause 2(a). Clause 2(b) empowers this Court to specify the law according to which the decree may be enforced. The phrase used is “in accordance with” and not “under”. “In accordance with” in the context implies similarity or harmony but not identity. The mode of enforcement which may be specified under clause 2(b) may therefore be similar to the methods of execution legally provided in respect of decrees or orders of any Court. Tribunal or Authority. The specification of the mode may be done in the decree itself or by a subsequent order made on an application of any party to the proceeding. The decree in this case had not specified the mode of execution. Haryana’s application is expressed to be under clause 2(b) of the 1954 Order. Doubtless Haryana has suggested the passing of directions to ensure implementation of the decree which may not be acceptable to us, but it has in prayer (c) prayed for “such other or further order or orders or such directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice”. That prayer is sufficient to meet even the entirely technical objection of Punjab and it cannot be said that Haryana’s application is not maintainable. (Para 96)

       In the circumstances we direct the Union of India to carry out its proposed action plan within the following time frame:

        1) The Union of India is to mobilize a Central agency to take control of the canal works from Punjab within a month from today.

        2) Punjab must hand over the works to the Central Agency within 2 (Two) weeks thereafter.

        3) An empowered committee should be set up to coordinate and facilitate the early implementation of the decree within 4 (four) weeks from today. Representatives of the States of Haryana and Punjab should be included in such Committee;

        4) The construction of the remaining portion of the canal including the survey, preparation of detailed estimates and other preparatory works such as repair, desilting, clearance of vegetation etc. are to be executed and completed by the Central Agency within such time as the High Powered Committee will determine.

        5) The Central and the Punjab Governments should provide adequate security for the staff of the Central Agency. (Para 97)

       (ii) Specific Relief Act, 1963-Sections 36 to 42-Injunctions-Guidelines as to the nature of this form of equitable relief-Whether these provisions limit powers of Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution.

       Held : Although these provisions may not limit the powers of this Court under Article 131 nevertheless they provide valuable guidelines as to the nature of this form of equitable relief. An injunction may be permanent (perpetual) or temporary [Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 36]. A permanent injunction is final and conclusive of the facts in the context of which the injunction is granted. A temporary injunction by contrast is granted on a prima facie view of the facts and, as the word ‘temporary’ itself indicates, is an interim order pending a final adjudication of the rights of the parties. This distinction is not to be confused with the distinction between a prohibitory or preventive injunction on the one hand and a mandatory injunction on the other. In the first case a party is prevented from doing a particular thing or continuing with a particular action [ (ibid) Section 38]. A mandatory injunction on the other hand commands an act to be done and is provided for under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. (Para 38)