Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Maharashtra vs The State Of Goa Chief Engineer on 2 March, 2020
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Ajay Rastogi
1
ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 32517/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-08-2018
in REF No. 1/2011 passed by the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF GOA CHIEF ENGINEER & ANR. Respondent(s)
(I.A. No. 34986 of 2020 in SLP(C) No. 19312/2019 is to be listed
against this item. )
WITH
SLP(C) No. 19312/2019 (XVII)
( FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS ON IA 34986/2020
IA No. 34986/2020 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)
Date : 02-03-2020 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arvind P. Datar, SR. Adv.
Mr. Devidas Pangam, Adv. Gen.
Mr. Pratap Venugopal, AOR
Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.
Ms. Ayushi Gaur, Adv.
Mr. Akhil Abraham Roy, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Valsan, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Nargolkar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) M/S. K J John And Co, AOR
Mr. Prabhuling K. Navadgi, Adv. Gen.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mohan V. Katarki, SR. Adv.
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2020.03.04
17:11:31 IST
Reason: Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. P.N. Rajeshwar, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Patil, Adv.
Mr. Ashwin Chikkmath, Adv.
Ms. Sanam Tripathi, Adv.
2
Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
IA No 349864 of 2020 in SLP(C) No. 19312/2019 IA No 349864 of 2020 has been moved by the State of Goa. The following directions have been sought in the interlocutory application:
“(a) pass an order restraining respondent nos 1 and 2 i.e. the State of Karnataka and the State of Maharashtra respectively, from taking any steps and/or from carrying out of any activity in purported implementation of the Award dated 14 August 2018 of the Tribunal;
(b) pass an order restraining respondent no 1
from acting upon any and/or all
clearances/approvals obtained from Central
Agencies/Authorities/Union Government with respect to the consumptive uses within the basin and/or diversion of water out side the basin at the proposed Kalasa dam site or at all; and
(c) pass an order directing a join inspection by the respective Officials of Petitioner and Respondent nos 1 and 2, headed either by an Assessor from the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal, or a Chief Enginer level officer of the Central Water Commission of the site viz. Kalasa river at Kankumbi village or near about thereto on such day as may be deemed convenient by this Hon’ble Court.” On 20 February 2020, this Court passed the following order on IA No. 109720/2019:
“The State of Karnataka has filed an interlocutory application for a direction to the Union of India to publish the award dated 14 August 2018 of the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal.
The prayer is not opposed by Mr Arvind P Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Goa or by Mr Deepak Nargolkar, learned 3 Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra.
The interlocutory application is allowed, subject to the result of the pending proceedings.” Following the above order of this Court, the Award of Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal dated 14 August 2018 has been notified in the Gazette of India on 27 February 2020.
Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Goa, submits that the interlocutory application has been instituted because of certain statements attributed to the Chief Minister of Karnataka in the print media. The attention of the Court is drawn to Clauses-X, XI and XII of the operative directions contained in the Award of the Tribunal. For convenience of reference, these directions are extracted below:
“Clause-X The Order passed by this Tribunal on 17.4.2014, while disposing I.A. No. 1 of 2012 filed by the State of Goa, will continue to be operative and will stand vacated or revoked only after:
(i) The State of Karnataka prepares revised Detailed Project Report(DPR) for consumptive uses within the basin or diversion of water outside the basin including the reservoir losses and other related matters for not more than 1.72 tmc at the proposed Kalasa dam site as permitted under Clause VIII & IX;
(ii). The revised DPR of Diversion Scheme atKalasa Dam site is appraised by the Central Agencies and is duly cleared;
(iii). All mandatory clearances are obtained as per law; and
(iv) The State of Karnataka is allowed to take up works as per duly approved revised DPR either by the Mahadayi Water Management Authority or the Union Government.4
Clause-XI The Order passed by this Tribunal on 11.2.2015, while disposing I.A. No. 28 of 2012 filed by the State of Goa, will continue to be operative and will stand vacated or revoked only after:
(i) The State of Maharashtra prepares revised Detailed Project Report (DPR) of Virdi Large MI Project limiting to consumptive use of 0.56 tmc of water including reservoir losses and other related matters as permitted under Clause VIII & IX;
(ii) The revised Detailed Project Report of Virdi Large MI Project is appraised by the Central Agencies and is duly cleared;
(iii)All mandatory clearances are obtained as per law; and
(iv). The State of Maharashtra is allowed to take up works as per duly approved revised Detailed Project Report either by the Mahadayi Water Management Authority or the Union Government.
Clause-XII The Central Government shall constitute an Authority, called ‘Mahadayi Water Management Authority’ to implement the Report and final decision of Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal with functions and compositions etc. as mentioned at para 1350 to para 1369 of this Report;” In view of the above directions, it is evident that the order passed by the Tribunal on 17 April 2014 while disposing of IA No 1 of 2012 filed by the State of Goa is to continue in operation while certain conditions fulfilled. Hence, there is no reason to entertain the interlocutory application which has been instituted by the State of Goa having regard to the above directions which have been issued by the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal. The Court has also been apprised of the fact that applications have been 5 moved before the Tribunal by all the three States. The Interlocutory Application is, accordingly, disposed of.
(ASHWANI KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER