2011 Supreme(SC) 944

2011 (7) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. V. Raveendran and A. K. Patnaik, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh — Plaintiff
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Original Suit No. 2 of 1996
Decided on : 27-9-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Article 131 of the Constitution does not prescribe any period of limitation within which a State or the Union of India has to file a dispute in the Court. No other provision of law prescribes the period within which a dispute under Article 131 of the Constitution can be instituted by a State against any other State or the Union of India. (Para 42)
(2) The question of maintainability of the suit has to be decided upon the assertions made by the Plaintiffs and the relief sought for, and taking the totality of the same and not by spinning up one paragraph of the plaint and then deciding the matter. (Para 49)
(3) Rejection of plaint where the plaint does not disclose cause of action ¯ At the stage, when oral and documentary evidence have already been led by the parties and arguments have been made by the counsel for the parties and when the Court is going to finally decide the suit, it is not necessary for the Court to consider whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and is liable to be rejected (Para 51)

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India, Article 131 ¯ Dispute between parties relating to the power generated in Bhakra Nangal and Beas Projects ¯ State of Himachal Pradesh (plaintiff) filing original suit in Supreme Court against the Union of India, States of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Union Territory of Chandigarh alleging that construction of two projects in the plaintiff’s territory has resulted in submergence of huge area of the territory of the plaintiff state ¯ Such submergence and reservoir of water meant loss of large area of cultivated and uncultivated land, trees and forests, towns, Government buildings, community buildings, wells, springs and paths, gardens, parks, road, bridges, telegraph lines, ferries and these in their turn have resulted in unemployment, loss of agricultural and trading activity, loss of revenue, etc. ¯ Defendants States have been benefited by the two projects, must compensate the plaintiff ¯ Under the provisions of Section 78(1) of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, the assets and liabilities are to be transferred to the successor States in proportion to the population ratio distributed between the successor States/Union Territories ¯ Plaintiff claimed share of 12% of the net power generated in the two projects free of cost, 7.19% share of the power generated in the two projects, and compensation Rs. 2199.77 crores along with interest for failure of the defendants to supply the plaintiff’s share in the electricity generated ¯ All the defendants contested the suit took pleas that the suit was barred by limitation, delay and latches, by Art 363 of the Constitution ¯ The plaint does not disclose cause of action against State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan ¯ The suit filed under Art. 131 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable ¯ No provision in the Punjab Reorganization Act for sharing of power generated in the two projects on the basis of transferred population, ratio, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief ¯ After trial the plaintiff’s suit partly decreed against the States of Punjab and Haryana and dismissed against Union of India, State of Rajasthan and Union Territory of Chandigarh.

        (b) Constitution of India, Article 3 ¯ Under the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution, Parliament has the power to form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State, increase the area of any State, diminish the area of any State, alter the boundaries of any State and alter the name of any State, but under Article 3, Parliament cannot take away the powers of the State Executive or the State Legislature in respect of matters enumerated in List-II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. (Para 65)

        (c) Constitution of India, Article 131 ¯ Jurisdiction ¯ The Court has jurisdiction not only to decide any question on which the existence of a legal right depends but also to decide any dispute involving any question on which the extent of a legal right depends. (Para 59)

        (d) Constitution of India, Art. 131 ¯ Suit in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court ¯ Limitation Period ¯ There is no limitation period for filing civil suit in the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution. (Para 42)

        (e) Constitution of India Art. 131, Proviso ¯ There is a clear bar for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution to decide a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which, having been entered into or executed before the commencement of the Constitution, continues in operation after such commencement. (Para 47)

        (f) Constitution of India Article 262 ¯ Clause (2) of Article 262 of the Constitution provides that notwithstanding anything in the 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 relating to waters of inter state rivers or river valleys ¯ Where the reliefs claimed by the Plaintiff shows that the dispute does not relate to a dispute in relation to inter state river water or the use thereof, but actually relates to sharing of power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and the Beas Projects, such a dispute was not barred under clause (2) of Article 262 of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. (Para 49)

        (g) Constitution of India, Article 363 ¯ Clause (1) of Article 363 of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction in any dispute arising out of any provision of a treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which were entered into or executed before the commencement of the Constitution by any Ruler of an Indian State or to which the Government of the Dominion of India or any of its predecessor Governments was a party and which has or has been continued in operation after such commencement, or in any dispute in respect of any right accruing under or any liability or obligation arising out of any of the provisions of this Constitution relating to any such treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument. (Para 47)

        (h) Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 ¯ Section 78 ¯ The plaintiff has the statutory right under Section 78 of the Act to the utilization of power and also the constitutional right to equal treatment vis-‘-vis the other successor States of the composite State of Punjab and the Plaintiff has cause of action in the suit to make a claim to the utilization of power from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects on the basis of such statutory right and constitutional right ¯ The Plaintiff had a legal right as a successor State of the composite State of Punjab to receive and utilize the power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects and this right was recognized by law and capable of being enforced by the power of the State. (Paras 54 and 58)

        (i) Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 ¯ Section 11 ¯ Section 11 of the Act provides that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction or exercise jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to a Tribunal under the Act. (Para 49)

        (j) Supreme Court Rules, 1996 ¯ Order XXIII, Rule 6(a) and CPC 1908 ¯ Order 7, Rule 11, Clause (a) ¯ Rejection of plaint where the plaint does not disclose cause of action ¯ At the stage, when oral and documentary evidence have already been led by the parties and arguments have been made by the counsel for the parties and when the Court is going to finally decide the suit, it is not necessary for the Court to consider whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and is liable to be rejected under Order XXIII Rule 6(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. (Para 51)