The obligation of the Executive to maintain law and order and the need for compliance with court orders.

ORDER

1. The present interlocutory application, being I.A. No.12 of 2016 which was mentioned yesterday, viz. 11.09.2016, is taken up today. In the affidavit of urgency in support of taking up of the application for hearing, if we allow ourselves to say so, is absolutely disturbing and to say the least, totally depreciable. Paragraph 3 of the said affidavit reads as follows:-

“I submit that this application for modification of the interim order dated 05th September, 2016, passed by this Hon'ble Court is necessitated not merely because of the spontaneous agitations in the various parts of Karnataka including Bangalore, Mandya, Mysore and Hassan in the Cauvery basis which has paralysed the normal life besides destroying the public and private properties (in hundreds of crores of rupees) as evident from the newspaper reports from 06.09.2016 to 10.09.2016, but having regard to the ground realities of needs and requirements as stated in the application.”

2. That apart, the application for modification contains certain averments which follow the tenor of similar language which cannot be conceived of to be filed in a court of law, seeking modification of an order. Agitation in spontaneity or propelled by some motivation or galvanized by any kind of catalystic component, can never form the foundation for seeking modification of an order.

3. An order of this Court has to be complied with by all concerned and it is the obligation of the Executive to see that the order is complied with in letter and spirit. Concept of deviancy has no room; and disobedience has no space. The citizens cannot become law unto themselves. When a court of law passes an order, it is the sacred duty of the citizens to obey the same. If there is any grievance, they are obligated under the law to take recourse to permissible legal remedies. The tenor of the application filed by the State of Karnataka does not reflect so, but, on the contrary, demonstrates otherwise. We decry it. We must appreciably state what Mr. Fali S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka has submitted without any kind of equivocation that the affidavit has been erroneously drafted, but the prayer, in essence, requires a hearing. Learned senior counsel would submit that he will not press any of the grounds which relate to the said assertions or averments, but would solely rely on other grounds and the final order passed by the Tribunal. Keeping in view the aforesaid submission, we proceed to record the proponents of Mr. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the State of Karnataka in respect of the reliefs sought for in the application. The prayers in the application read as follows:-

“(a) Hear this application urgently on Sunday.

(b) Modify the order dated 05.09.2016 (as corrected on 06.09.2016) already passed by this Hon'ble Court, subject to further orders later on, restricting the releases to 10000 cusecs per day for six days totalling 60000 cusecs (66465 cusecs has already been released from Karntaka reservoirs from 05.09.2016 to 10.09.2016 and at the inter State border Bilingundlu, the release as gauged by the Central Water Commission has been 34529 cusecs from 05.09.2016 to 10.09.2016); and

(c) Keep in abeyance the Clause (c) of the directions of the Hon'ble Court in its order dated 05.09.2016 as corrected on 06.09.2016.”

4. Be it stated, though the prayer (b) of the application is couched in a different language, as the quoted portion hereinabove would clearly show, Mr. Nariman has emphasized on clause (c). It is because the principal prayer of the State of Karnataka is to keep the directions contained in the order dated 5th September, 2016, in abeyance till the Supervisor Committee takes a decision. In support of the said argument, Mr. Nariman has produced a comparative chart indicating storage and flow position of Karnataka reservoirs and Tamil Nadu's Reservoir