Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Kerala vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 November, 2017
Bench: Arun Mishra, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
1
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.10 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Original Suite (s). No(s). 2/2013
THE STATE OF KERALA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondent(s)
Date : 07-11-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
For Petitioner(s)
Mr.Jaideep Gupta, Sr.Adv.
Mr.G.Prakash, Adv.
Mr.Jishnu M.L., Adv.
Mrs.Priyanka Prakash, Adv.
Mrs.Beena Prakash, Adv.
Mr.Vijay Shankar V.L., Adv.
Mr.Mohan V. Kattarki, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr.Subramaniam Prasad, AAG
Mr.G.Umapati, Adv.
Mr.K.V.Vijayakumar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The following issues have been considered by learned counsel for the parties:-
1. Whether the suit under Article 131 of the Constitution is maintainable?Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by
2. Whether the Suit is barred by law by virtue of SANJAY KUMAR Section 11 of the Inter State River Water Disputes Date: 2017.11.11 11:57:46 IST Reason:
Act, 1956 read with Article 262(2) of the Constitution?2
3. Whether the dispute is not a water dispute within the meaning of Section 2(c)(ii) of the Inter State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 and hence barred by law?
4. Whether the dispute is not referable to arbitration in view of clause 5(f) of PAP Agreement of 1970?
5. Whether both the States are adhering to the terms of the PAP Agreement of 1970?
6. Whether the PAP Agreement of 1970 guarantees an assured supply to Plaintiff?
7(a) Whether the deficit in the inflows into the various PAP projects are not to be shared pro-rata by the party States?
(b) Whether the Plaintiff State of Kerala is entitled to 12.3 TMC of water and 7.25 TMC of water from the defendant's Tamil Nadu Sholayar reservoir and Tamil Nadu Aliyar Dam respectively in every water year including the distress years under the PAP Agreement of 1970?
(c) Whether, even in the distress years, the Defendant State of Tamil Nadu “shall supply annually at Manacadavu weir near Kerala border 7.250 TMC of water exclusive of unutilized flood waters for assured irrigation of 20000 acres in Kerala (including 5000 acres of VarthuVitha)” as specified in sub para (a) of para 4 of Schedule II of the PAP Agreement of 1970?
(d) Whether the Defendant State of Tamil Nadu “shall let down from their reservoir in the Sholayar river such 3 quantities of water” in the manner specified in sub para (I) of para 2 of Schedule II of the PAP Agreement of 1970 in every year including the distress years?
8(a) Whether plaintiff is entitled to any damages?
(b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for punitive damages of Rs.50,00,000/- for the year 2012-2013 and actual damages as claimed for the same year for short supply of water as claimed by the State of Kerala.
Let the requisite documents of list of witnesses be filed by the parties within a period of three months from today.
List the matter in the month of March, 2018.
(Ashok Raj Singh) (Jagdish Chander)
Court Master Court Master