REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. NO. 5 OF 2011

in

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) No(s).5822 OF 2006

KACHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI & ORS. Petitioner(s)/

Applicant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Heard

learned

counsel

for

the

applicant(s)/petitioner(s).

This interlocutory application for directions is

filed in the special leave petition. The special leave

petition has been filed against the judgment of the Gujarat

High Court dated 04.10.2005 dismissing the writ petition

filed by way of Public Interest Litigation. The prayer in

the Writ Petition related to the alleged grievance of meagre

allocation of water from Sardar Sarovar Dam by the State

Government of Gujarat to the district of Kuchchh which is

alleged to constitute 1/4^th of the total area of the State of

Gujarat and is alleged to be a drought prone district.

By means of the impugned judgment the Division

Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding

that there are no judicially manageable standards

for

:1:

adjudication for allocation of water in favour of any region

within the State. The Government is the best judge to decide

how much water should be released from the Narmada Canal to

Kuchchh and how much water is to be left for other regions.

All these decisions require delicate balancing and

consideration

of

complex

social

and

economical

considerations which cannot be brought under the judicial

scrutiny. In fact, the State Government has accepted the

decision of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal which cannot

be said to be arbitrary.

Now, this interlocutory application for interim

directions has been filed with the following prayers :-

“(a) to appoint a committee comprising of experts

to go into the pros and cons of various

alternative systems of mode of conveyance of

Narmada waters through Kachchh Branch Canal to

the region of Kachchh with reference to cost

benefit ratio and other relevant aspects and be

further please to direct the committee to submit

a detailed report in this regard to the Hon'ble

Court, and this Hon'ble Court be further pleased

to pass further appropriate orders on receipt of

such expert report.

(b) restrain the respondents from commencing the

construction of proposed Kachchh Branch Canal

until the aforesaid exercise is completed by this

Hon'ble Court.

(c) direct the respondents to consider the

relative cost advantage among various methods for

transportation of water through Kuchchh Branch

Canal.

(d) direct the respondents to consider the

relative cost advantage in transporting water

through Kuchchh Branch by pipeline as suggested

by CWC.

:2:

(e) direct the respondents to present facts and

figures on the basis of which the decision to

transport the water through Kuchchh Branch Canal

has been arrived at by the respondents.”

We are of the opinion that the prayer for allocation

of adequate water in Kuchchh district is not one which can

be a matter of judicial review. It is for the executive

authorities to look into this matter. As held by this Court

in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. Vs.

Chander Hass & Anr. (2008) 1 SCC 683, there must be

judicial restraint in such matters.

For the reasons above stated, we are not inclined to

grant any of the prayers made in the interlocutory

application. The interlocutory application is dismissed

accordingly.

..........................J.

(MARKANDEY KATJU)

NEW DELHI;

..........................J.

JULY 22, 2011

(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)