PETITIONER:
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/1997
BENCH:
CJI, S.B. MAJMUDAR, B.N. KIRPAL
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
WITH I.A. NO. 6 OF 1996
ORDER
By judgment dated 4.5.1990 in Writ Petition No. 13347 of 1983, this Court directed the Central Government to notify in the official gazette the constitution of an appropriate Tribunal for the adjudication of water dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants.
By Notification dated 2.6.1990, a Tribunal namely; Cauvery Water Disputes Tributes Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ’the Tribunal’) was constituted for adjudicating the water disputes regarding the inter State river Cauvery and the river valley thereof. after the said Notification, interim application was filed by the plaintiff before the Tribunal praying for the following reliefs:
(a) direct the State of Karnataka
not to impound or utilise water of
Cauvery river beyond the extent
impounded or utilised by them as on
31.5.1972, as agreed to by the
Chief Ministers of the basin States
and the Union Minister for
Irrigation and Powers, that day;
and
(b) pass and order of injunction
restraining the State of Karnataka
from undertaking any new projects,
dams, reservoirs, canals, etc.,
and/or from proceeding further with
the construction of projects, dams,
reservoirs, canal etc., in the
course of River Cauvery or its
tributaries except with the consent
of Tamil Nadu or with the specific
directions of this Hon’ble
Tribunal; and
(c) pass such further or other
orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may
be pleased to in the interest of
justice.
By order dated 5.1.1991, the Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid application as in its opinion, it could not decide the disputes not referred to it including the dispute regarding grant of interim relief. The plaintiff, thereafter filed Civil Appeal Nos. 303-304 of 1991 against the said order. This Court by judgment dated 26.4.1991 set-aside the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal and directed it to decide afresh the interim application on merits.
The Tribunal on 25.6.1991 passed interim orders, inter alia directing the State of karnataka to release water from its reservoirs in Karnataka so as to ensure that 205 TMC of water was available in Tamil Nadu’s Mettur Reservoir in a year from June to May. In that year, the order was to be effective from 1.7.1991. It also directed the following manner:
June 10.16 TMC December 10.37 TMC
July 42.79 TMC January 2.51 TMC
August 54.72 TMC February 2.17 TMC
September 29.93 TMC March 2.40 TMC
October 30.17 TMC April 2.32 TMC
November 16.05 TMC May 2.01 TMC
The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 14.5.1992 principally seeking the enforcement of the Tribunal’s interim order dated 25.6.1991. By order dated 7.9.1995, this Court framed the following issues:
"(1) Whether in view of the
provisions contained in Article 262
of the Constitution of India and
Section 11 of the Inter-State Water
Disputes Act, 1956, the suit is not
maintainable?
(2) Whether, a suit for enforcement
of and interim order of the Inter-
State Water Disputes Tribunal
(constituted under the Inter-State
Water Disputes Act, 1956) is a suit
relating to a water dispute? If
yes, what is its effect?
(3) Whether, the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 13 of the
Constitution of India cannot be
invoked unless the Cauvery Water
Disputes Tribunal has recorded a
finding the there has been a
violation of its order dated
25.6.1991 and/or 3.4.1992?
(4) Whether, by the order dated
3.4.1992 the Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal can be said to have
modified its order dated 3.4.1992
the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
can be said to have modified its
order dated 25.6.1991 under Section
5(3) of the Inter-State Water
Disputes Act, 1956? If Yes, what is
its effect?
(5) Whether, it is open to the
State of Karnataka to unilaterally
reduce the monthly release of water
required to made as per the order
dated 25.6.1991 red with order
dated 3.4.1992 under ’distress
clause’ stated to have been
provided by the Tribunal?
(6) Whether, the plaintiff is
entitled to all of any of the
reliefs claimed in paragraphs a.b
and c of the plaint?
(7) What order?"
The parties did not desire to lead any oral evidence and the suit was set-down for hearing.
During the pendency of this suit, the Court was informed the efforts are being made to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties. However, no information is available with regard to the final outcome of the efforts in this behalf. Inasmuch as the suit is being referred to Constitution Bench, it is possible that in the meantime, an amicable settlement may be arrived at.
Having considered the submissions urged on behalf of both the parties, it appears to us that this suit involves substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and, therefore, it will be appropriate if this suit is heard and decided by a Constitution Bench of this Court. Ordered accordingly.