Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Orrisa vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 August, 2018
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta
1
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.3 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 Suit (s). No(s).4/2007
STATE OF ORISSA Plaintiff(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. Defendant(s)
Date : 02-08-2018 This Suit was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. Das, Adv.
Mr. Pavan Bhusan, Adv.
Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UOI Mr. S. W.A. Qadri, Adv.
Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Hemant Arya, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Dr. Nishesh Sharma, Adv.
Karnataka Mr. S.S. Javali, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Brijesh Kalappa, Adv.
Mr. Gurudatta Ankolekar, Adv.
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Andhra Pradesh Mr. A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. Srinivas, Adv. Gen.
Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, Adv.
Mr. S.P. Mukherjee, adv.
Digitally signed by
SANJAY KUMAR
Date: 2018.08.03
15:20:29 IST
Reason: Mr. Raka Chatterjee, Adv.
Maharashtra Mr. D. M. Nargolkar, AOR
2
Chhatisgarh Mr. Atul Jha, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR
Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nikhil swami, Adv.
Mr. Krishnamurthi Swami, Adv.
Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR
Mr. Krishnamurthi Swami, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The following issues are framed:
1. Whether the suit raises an Inter State River Water Dispute as defined under Section 2(c) of the Inter-State River Water Dispute Act (XXXIII of 1956) and is therefore not maintainable under Article 262 of the Constitution of India read with Section 11 of the Act 33 of 1956? - (OP D-1 to 4)
2. Whether the State of Telangana is disentitled to question the execution of the Polavaram project in view of the Section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act? – (OP D-1)
3. What is the effect of the Godavari Water Dispute Tribunal Award dated 07.07.1980, which all parties are admittedly bound by? (OP Parties)
4. Whether the construction of the Inchampalli, Bhopalapatnam, and other upstream Projects is an integral part of the Polavaram Project, and if so, its effect on the Polavaram Project as now being constructed? (OP P) 3
5. Whether the design of the Polavaram project as approved by the CWC is not in consonance with the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award? If so, its effect? - (OP P)
6. Whether the design of the Polavaram project does not take into consideration back water effect and studies in the State of Odisha, Chhattisgarh and Telangana? - (OP -
Odisha, Chhattisgarh and Telangana)
7. Whether change in the design of Polavaram Project, especially in so far as it raises the spill-way discharge capacity from 36 lakh cusecs to 50 lakh cusecs is so fundamental that it amounts to violation of the GWDT Award, and, therefore, requires fresh statutory clearances to be obtained? (OP – Odisha, Chhattisgarh and Telangana)
8. Whether fresh environment clearance is required in view of the change in the design of the spillway of the Polavaram project? – (OP P)
9. Whether there is any diversion of forest land due to change in design of the Polavaram project and whether this will lead to adverse effects upon the Tribal areas and population in the State of Odisha, Chhattisgarh and Telangana? If yes, whether forest clearance is required for the project? (OP P)
10. Whether the project cannot be permitted to be constructed without clearance under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980? (OP P) 4
11. Whether the construction on the Polavaram projects and ancillary construction will lead to adverse environment impact on the territory of Odisha, Chhattisgarh and Telangana, if so, to what extent and what remedial measures should be taken? (OP- Odisha, Chhattisgarh and Telangana).
12. Whether a public hearing was not held before grant of projects to hear the persons likely to be affected by the Polavaram project? If so, its effect?. (OP P)
13. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed in view of the report submitted by the Expert Team (headed by Shri M. Gopalakrishnan) appointed by this Court ? (OP D-1 to
4)
14. Relief The plaintiff may file its documents along with list of documents within two weeks from today.
The defendants may file their documents along with list of documents within two weeks thereafter.
In any case, the entire exercise of filing documents should be completed within four weeks failing which costs will be imposed.
List the matter on 6th September, 2018. IA No.103115 Application is disposed of with permission to the State of Andhra Pradesh to file a reply to the written statements filed by the States of Telangana and Chhattisgarh.
5IA No.105699/2018 Application concerns only to the States of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Union of India. Issue notice to them only.
Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha and Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, learned counsel accept notice on behalf of the States of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Union of India respectively.
Reply be filed within three weeks.
List the application on 6th September, 2018.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (KAILASH CHANDER)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER