Back
2011 (6) Supreme 579
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. Panchal and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
State of Punjab — Plaintiff
versus
State of Haryana and others — Defendants
Interlocutory Application No. 7 of 2011
In
Original Suit No. 1 of 2007
Decided on : 23-9-2011
(b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1 ¯ Original suit before Supreme Court under Art 131 of the Constitution, read with Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules 1966 ¯ Application by the plaintiff State of Punjab for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant-State of Haryana from further proceeding with the construction of a concrete toe wall/providing concrete lining on the outer slope of the left embankment between RD 45000 and 57000 of the Hansi Branch - Bhutana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel (MPCL) ¯ According to the Plaintiff-State of Punjab, the principle of cooperative federalism and territorial integrity of the State of Punjab do not permit the Government of Haryana to construct a toe-wall/providing concrete lining on the outer slope of left embankment as the proposed construction has propensity of causing serious damage to lives and properties situated within the territory of the State of Punjab ¯ It also claimed that the construction undertaken by the State of Haryana, if allowed to complete, will cause in the event of heavy rains and flooding of River Ghaggar, in future an adverse impact on the population of Punjab in more than 70 villages and would inevitably result in prolonged and perpetual submergence of thousands of acres of lands in more than 32 villages ¯ Prayer resisted by the State of Haryana but supported by State of Rajasthan ¯ Report of Central Water Commission that the strengthening of the basement of the canal not going to cause any serious prejudice as claimed by the State of Punjab on the Punjab side of the Bandh ¯ There are already siphons provided for water to flow under the canal ¯ The State of Punjab’s own expert also admitted the need to strengthen the Bandh ¯ The apprehensions expressed by the State of Punjab based on hypothesis ¯ The Defendant-State of Haryana, is entitled to protect its inhabitants from floods just as erstwhile State of Punjab was entitled to protect its inhabitants to the south of the Bandh ¯ The toe-wall would prevent seepage below ground and also prevent the weakening of the base of the Bandh ¯ The balance of convenience in favour of the Defendant-State of Haryana ¯ If the relief, as prayed for, is granted to the State of Punjab, it is State of Haryana, which will suffer greater loss and irreparable injury ¯ State of Haryana has the right to carry out the necessary work in its territory and also the duty to its citizens ¯ Interlocutory application rejected.
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
[Order and Court Composition] - The case was heard by the Supreme Court of India with Justices J.M. Panchal and H.L. Gokhale presiding (!) .
[Parties and Nature of Dispute] - The State of Punjab filed Suit No. 1 of 2007 under Article 131 of the Constitution, seeking to restrain the State of Haryana from proceeding with construction activities on a canal and embankment, and to dismantle existing embankments (!) . - The dispute involves inter-state water management, territorial integrity, and construction of flood protection structures [judgement_subject].
[Relief Sought] - Punjab sought a perpetual injunction against Haryana’s construction of a toe wall and concrete lining, claiming it would cause damage to Punjab’s territory and villages, and disrupt water flow (!) (!) . - Haryana defended its right to protect its inhabitants from floods, asserting the work was necessary for flood prevention and structural stability (!) (!) .
[Legal Principles Applied] - Relief of ad interim injunction cannot be granted based on hypotheses or surmises; the balance of convenience and potential irreparable injury to the opposite party are critical considerations (!) (!) . - The Court emphasized that every State has a duty and right to protect its citizens and property within its territory (!) (!) .
[Technical and Topographical Details] - The dispute involves the construction of a concrete toe wall and strengthening of a Bandh (embankment) constructed prior to Haryana’s formation, aimed at flood control (!) (!) (!) . - The work is at or below the natural surface level, designed not to obstruct water flow or drainage, but to prevent seepage and reinforce the embankment (!) (!) (!) .
[Assessment of Risks and Evidence] - The Court found that the apprehensions of flooding caused by the strengthening work were based on hypotheses rather than concrete evidence (!) (!) . - Existing reports indicate that the proposed construction would not cause significant prejudice or obstruct water flow and that strengthening measures are necessary to prevent breaches (!) (!) .
[Balance of Convenience] - The Court determined that the larger damage occurred in Haryana in previous floods, and that failure to repair the Bandh could lead to more severe flooding and damage in Haryana (!) (!) . - The balance of convenience favored Haryana, emphasizing its right and duty to undertake flood protection work within its territory (!) .
[Decision] - The Court rejected the interlocutory application filed by Punjab, concluding that the relief sought was not justified based on the available data and that the potential harm to Haryana outweighed the claims of Punjab (!) .
[General Principles] - The dispute underscores the importance of inter-state cooperation in water management, but also highlights that individual states have a right and duty to undertake protective measures within their own territories (!) . - The Court refrained from deciding on broader issues like reference to inter-state dispute tribunals, focusing solely on the interim relief application (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
ORDER
J.M. Panchal, J. —
The State of Punjab has filed Suit No. 1 of 2007 on July 11, 2007 in this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution read with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and claimed a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the State of Haryana from further proceeding with the digging of channel and construction of an embankment under the project named Hansi Branch - Bhutana Branch Multipurpose Channel project by puncturing the Bhakra Main Line Canal. The said State has also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the State of Haryana to dismantle the embankment of the project named Hansi Branch - Bhutana Branch Multipurpose Channel Project between the points X and Y in the map appended to the plaint as Annexure ‘A’. The State of Punjab has further prayed for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the Union of India, its agents or departments from granting any clearance to the project named Hansi Branch - Bhutana Branch Multipurpose Channel Project in the absence of the concurrence of the State of Punjab as contemplated and mandated by Article 13 of the Bhakra Nangal Agreement entered into between the erstwhile State of Punjab and State of Rajasthan.
2. The Original Suit No. 1 of 2007 along with I.A. No. 1 of 2007 was placed before this Court for preliminary hearing on August 17, 2007 and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, following order was passed by the Court: -
“Defendants have appeared.
List the Suit along with this application on 05th September, 2007.
Written statement and the objections to this I.A. may be filed in the meantime.
The defendant-State is restrained from rupturing the Bhakra Main Line Canal connecting the proposed Hansi Branch - Bhutana Branch Multipurpose Channel till then.”
After pleadings were complete, the Court had framed five issues for determination by order dated August 26, 2008. Thereafter, pursuant to directions given by the Court from time to time the evidence is being recorded in the Suit.
3. During the pendency of the above numbered Suit, the State of Punjab has filed present interlocutory application, and prayed to grant ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant-State of Haryana from further proceeding with the construction of a concrete toe wall/providing concrete lining on the outer slope of the left embankment between RD 45000 and 57000 of the Hansi Branch - Bhutana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel (MPCL). On service of a copy of the interlocutory application the State of Haryana has filed detailed reply to which the State of Punjab has filed rejoinder.
4. This application was heard at great length and in great detail on different dates as indicated in order-sheets. On August 26, 2011 Mr. Mohan Jain, the learned Additional Solicitor General, had submitted a copy of “Brief Note on BML - Hansi Branch - Bhutana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel (MPCL) Haryana” prepared in July, 2011. A copy of the said Brief Note was taken on record and the plaintiff as well as defendants were granted time to enable them to file response to the report submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General. In order to support oral arguments the learned counsel for the parties were also permitted to file written submissions and accordingly the learned counsel for the parties have filed written submissions.
5. The State of Punjab has taken out this I.A. to restrain the construction of a concrete toe-wall providing concrete lining on the outer slope of the left embankment. The case of the Plaintiff-State of Punjab is that this strengthening will result into an increased collection of back water and the sheet flow towards the State of Punjab. This assertion is made on the footing that because of heavy rains in July-August, 2010 and flooding of the river Ghaggar, which flows on the northern since of the stretch RD 45,000 to RD 57,000 of this canal, such water-clogging did take place in Punjab, in spite of a breach of the canal at point RD 53,000, a
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
