(1) WE have heard Mr Sharma in person, learned Additional Solicitor General for Union of India and counsel for the States of Gujarat, Mad- hya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Mr Bagia, the present Commissioner who is present in court has also been heard.

(2) A letter received from Mr Sharma, while he was in Office as Com- missioner of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has been treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. His letter essentially raised questions with reference to the relationship between the Com- missioner and the Union of India as also the State governments, the effective nature of the Reports made from time to time by the Com- missioner; implementation and non-implementation of the recommenda- tions and the consequences arising out of the same and the constitutional methods which should have been generated for the purpose of treating the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of monitor- ing their welfare. That letter apparently appeared to raise constitutional issues of importance and, therefore, we considered it appropriate that it should be examined. It is true that in the letter reference was made to certain institutions where according to Mr Sharma, there was infraction of the obligation and, therefore, certain action should be taken.

(3) COUNSEL for the three States have supplied the figures on the basis of which we find that in Maharashtra there will be 2468 oustees, in Gujarat the number would be 4500 and in Madhya Pradesh it would be 6800 or so. The Award indicated certain figures but there has been a change in the position of oustees.

(4) FROM the affidavit of the Gujarat government we find that out of 4500 oustee families about 3100 families have already accepted rehabilitation. The remainder obviously is yet to be attended to. Mr Sharma has also told us that in view of the fact that State of Gujarat has already been taking rehabilitatory steps, there is not much of agitation against the Scheme in Gujarat. We have been told that in the other two States there is some amount of agitation.

(5) SARDAR Sarovar is an inter-State project, the feeder being Narmada an inter-State river. This is financed by the World Bank and assistance is forthcoming from some of the foreign countries. As it is, completion is behind schedule. It is, therefore, difficult to look for enfor- cement of what had been contemplated either in the agreement or in the Award. While we agree that the rehabilitation should be done as far as possible in a methodical and meticulous way, to enforce terms and condi- tions stipulated in the agreement such as eighteen months notice before effecting evacuation in terms may be difficult and may not be beneficial for the ultimate purpose. We understand that there is a Committee headed by the secretary, Social Welfare, as a Sub-Committee under Narmada Control Authority. We would require this Committee where the .Secretary, Social Welfare is the Chairman, to be activised so as to ensure rehabilitation. We would direct that this Committee should move in the areas where there is rehabilitation to be undertaken and directly ensure that rehabilitative process is undertaken. The rainy season is on but within a month or six weeks the weather would improve. We would, therefore, require rehabilitation to be personally supervised at intervals by the Committee in all the areas likely to be submerged when water is stored.

(6) IT was submitted to us that the first storage of water in Gujarat area is to be done in 1992, and within two years it would be done in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is, therefore, necessary that before April 1992, rehabilitation should be effected in regard to the oustees who are said to be the remainder out of 4500. Rehabilitation should be so done that at least six months before area is likely to be submerged, rehabilita- tion should be complete and should be in respect of homestead substitu- tion of agricult