1. Suit for mandatory injunction to compel completion of Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal under Article 131 of the Constitution. (Para 1 , 4 , 16 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 52
Supreme Court Of India
STATE OF HARYANA
Versus
State of Punjab
Decided on : January 15, 2002
A dispute over the construction of a canal to carry already allocated water is not a "water dispute" under the Water Disputes Act, 1956, and thus does not bar the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 131 and 262 - Water Disputes Act, 1956 - Sections 2(c), 11 and 14 - Reorganisation Act, 1966 - Section 78 - A dispute concerning the construction of a link canal to utilize water already allocated to a state is not a “water dispute” as defined under Section 2(c) of the Water Disputes Act - Such a dispute does not oust the jurisdiction of the court under Article 131 of the Constitution. (Paras 5-7)
(B) Federalism and Administrative Continuity - Decisions taken by governments based on consensus and inter-state agreements, which do not involve political philosophy but impact the interests of other states and the nation, cannot be unilaterally nullified by a succeeding government. (Para 16)
(C) Role of Central Government - In a semi-federal system, the central authority has a constitutional obligation to ensure that member states abide by constitutional discipline and honor their commitments to other states to prevent the breakdown of federalism. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff state sought a mandatory injunction compelling the defendant state to complete a link canal within the defendant state's territory to enable the transmission of river waters already allocated to the plaintiff state under a statutory notification and subsequent inter-state agreements. Despite significant public expenditure and previous agreements for time-bound completion, the defendant state stopped the construction, citing social unrest and political reasons.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the dispute pertained to the obligation to construct a carrier for allocated water rather than a dispute over the use, distribution, or control of the waters themselves. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the court under Article 131 was not barred. The court also noted that huge sums of public money had been spent and that the defendant state's refusal to complete the project was unreasonable and against national interest.
Issues: Whether the defendant state and alternatively the central government were bound to complete the link canal project in a time-bound manner; whether the suit was maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution; and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the construction of a canal to facilitate the utilization of already allotted water does not constitute a “water dispute” under the Water Disputes Act. Furthermore, it ruled that governance decisions resulting from inter-state consensus are binding on successor governments to ensure stability and the efficient use of public resources.
Result: Suit decreed; defendant state directed to complete the canal within one year, failing which the central government is directed to ensure its completion.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff asserts binding agreements and conduct; defendant disputes jurisdiction under Inter-State Water Disputes Act and denies legal obligation. (Para 2 , 3 , 6 )
3. Dispute over canal construction is not a water dispute under Section 2(c) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, thus not barred. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 )
4. Agreements between States are enforceable; non-completion of canal after substantial expenditure violates national interest and constitutional obligations. (Para 17 , 18 )
5. Decree of mandatory injunction granted against State of Punjab to complete SYL Canal within one year; Union of India to execute if State fails. (Para 18 , 19 )
6. Does a dispute over construction of an inter-state canal constitute a 'water dispute' under Section 2(c) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956?
No. Construction of a canal for utilizing already allocated water is not a dispute about use, distribution, or control of water, hence not a water dispute. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
7. Is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131 barred by Article 262 and Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act for this dispute?
No, the bar under Article 262 applies only to 'water disputes' as defined. Since this dispute is not a water dispute, the Court retains jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
8. Are political agreements between States, ratified by conduct and substantial expenditure, enforceable as binding obligations?
Yes. Agreements entered into and acted upon, with significant public expenditure, create enforceable obligations; subsequent governments cannot unilaterally repudiate them. (Para 1 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
9. Can a mandatory injunction be issued against a State to complete a public works project for the benefit of another State?
Yes. Where there is a clear legal right, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, the court can issue a mandatory injunction to ensure completion. (Para 17 , 18 )
10. What is the constitutional obligation of the Union of India when a State fails to implement inter-state agreements affecting national interest?
The Union must ensure compliance with constitutional obligations and national interest; it can and should execute the project through its own agencies if the State fails. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 , 17 , 18 )
Judgment
PATTANAIK, J.
( 1 ) THE State of Haryana has filed the present suit, under Article 131 of the Constitution of India, impleading the State of Punjab as defendant 1 and the Union of India as Defendant 2, for the following reliefs:" (a) pass a decree declaring that the order dated 24-3-1976, the agreement of 31-12-1981 and the settlement of 24-7-1985 are final and binding inter alia on the State of Punjab casting an obligation on Defendant 1 to immediately restart and complete the portion of the sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Project as also make it usable in all respects, not only under the aforesaid order of 1976, agreement of 1981 and settlement of 1985 but also pursuant to a contract established by conduct from 1976 till date; (b) pass a decree of mandatory injunction compelling Defendant 1 (failing which Defendant 2 by or through any agency) to discharge its/their obligations under the said notification of 1976, the agreement of 1981 and the settlement of 1985 and in any case under contract established by conduct, by immediately restarting and completing that portion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Project in the State of Punjab and otherwise making it suitable for use within a time-bound manner as may be stipulated by this Honble Court to enable the State of Haryana to receive its share of Ravi and Beas waters; (c) award costs of the present suit to the plaintiff and against defendant 1; and (d) pass such other or further order or orders to such directions as a this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice. "it has been averred in the plaint that Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal is in fact, the lifeline of the farmers of Haryana and the livelihood of the farmers depends on the water, which is not only a natural resource, but a valuable national asset and completion of the aforesaid canal, would enable the State of haryana to receive its share of waters of Rivers Ravi and Beas. The plaintiff-State has averred that after the partition of India in 1947, the emergence of two independent countries - India and Pakistan, division of the waters of River Indus and its tributaries became an international issue and in the year 1960, the Government of India signed a treaty with Pakistan called the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. Under the aforesaid Treaty, the waters of the three eastern rivers, namely, Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were acquired for unrestricted use in India, to the exclusion of Pakistan and towards consideration, the Government of India agreed to make a fixed contribution of Pounds Sterling 62. 06 million (equivalent to about 110 crore rupees) to pakistan. In a meeting of the beneficiary States, namely, the State of Punjab, as it existed then, the State of Kashmir, the State of Rajasthan and the State of PEPSU, which meeting had been convened by the Government of India on 29-1-1955, a workable agreement was arrived at for development and utilization of the waters of Rivers Ravi and Beas and under the said agreement, the share of the undivided Punjab was 5. 90 MAF. When there was a bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Punjab into two separate States of punjab and Haryana w. e. f. 1-11-1966 under the Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966, special provisions had been made with regard to the rights and liabilities of the successor States in relation to the water from the Bhakra nangal Project and the Beas Project, Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation act, 1966, deals with such rights and liabilities of the successor States. Dispute arose between the two States of Punjab and Haryana as to their respective share of water which had earlier been allocated to the erstwhile state of Punjab and in the meeting called by the Government of India, a decision was taken on ad hoc basis that 35 of water would go to Haryana and 65 to Punjab, pending finalisation of the dispute. The State of Haryana approached the Government of India in October 1969, invoking its jurisdiction under Sec
