JUDGMENT

S.B.MAJMUDAR, J.

(1) I had the privilege of going through the draft judgment prepared by brother G.B. Pattanaik, J. in the aforesaid suit. I respectfully agree with the same. However, looking to the importance of two pivotal issues, being issue Nos. 2 and 9 (a), (b) & (c), I have thought it fit to supplement the reasoning in the aforesaid judgment by my concurring observations on these issues as under: ISSUE NO. 2 :

(2) HAS this Honble COURt jurisdiction to entertain and try this Suit? (MAH). Article 131 provides as under: "131. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme COURt-Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme COURt shall, to the exclusion of any other COURt, have original jurisdiction in any dispute (a) XXX XXX XXX (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) between two or more States. If and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends: xxx xxx xxx

(3) WE are not concerned with the Proviso which deals with treaties and agreements entered into or executed before the commencement of the Constitution. As Article 131 itself is subject to the other provisions of the Constitution, we have to turn to Article 262 which deals with disputes relating to waters. Sub-article (1) thereof provides that: "262. Adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-State rivers or river valleys - (1) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley." Sub-article (2) thereof lays down that: "(2) NotwiTHStanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme COURt nor any other COURt shall exercise Jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause (1)". It is not in dispute between the parties that the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Disputes Act) is a legislation passed under Article 262 of the Constitution. It is equally not in dispute that Section 11 thereof excludes the jurisdiction of this COURt in respect of water disputes referred to the Tribunal. It will therefore, have to be seen whether the State of Andhra Pradesh, as plaintiff, having invoked the jurisdiction of this COURt under Article 131 has, in substance, raised water dispute which will exclude the jurisdiction of this COURt as per Section 11 of the Disputes Act read with Article 262 Sub-article (2). In other words, if in substance, the plaintiff wants adjudication of any water dispute between it and the other contesting States, namely, the State of Karnataka or the State OF MAHARASTRA which are upper riparian States located in the Krishna basin through which the river Krishna, which is admittedly an inter-State river, flows. The expression water dispute has been defined by the Disputes Act as per Section 2(c) as under: "water dispute" means any dispute or difference between two or more State Governments with respect to (i) the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley; or (ii) the interpretation of the terms of any agreement relating to the use, distribution or control of such waters or the implementation of such agreement; or (iii) the levy of any water-rate in contravention of the prohibition contained in Section 7." Keeping in view the aforesaid salient features of the Constitutional scheme and the relevant provisions of the Disputes Act, we may turn to the plaint of the State of Andhra Pradesh in the present suit. While deciding the question of jurisdiction of this COURt, the averments in the plaint on demurrer will have to be kept in view. Paragraph 4 of the plaint recites that: "After the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal rendered its decision, first on 24/12/1973 and a further decision on 27/5/1976, the plaintiff understood that all the riparian States,