Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

A written statement was filed by the State of Punjab questioning the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 262 of the Constitution of India. It was also contended that the suit was barred under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Order XXXII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. According to the State of Punjab the agreement dated 31st December 1981 was superseded by the settlement dated 24th July 1986 which did not bind the State. It was averred that the SYL canal was unnecessary because the State of Haryana was to get additional water supply from other rivers and that the State of Haryana had no right to the water from the river Ravi.

Both the submissions are inter related. Article 145(3) was relied on because it was said that the scope of Article 131 and 262 had to be interpreted. We had said in the judgment dated 15th January, 2002, that in the Constitution Bench decision in Stats of Karnataka v. State of A.P., [2000] 9 SCC 572 this Court had considered the provisions of Article 262(2) of the Constitution and Section 11 and Section 2(c) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act and its impact on a suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution. By that decision two cross suits were disposed of (O.S. No. 1/1997 by the 'State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. and O.S. No. 2/1997 by the State of A.P. v. State of Karnataka). Two separate judgments were delivered. The State of A.P. had prayed for 14 reliefs but, the Court observed, the reliefs essentially related to the construction of the Almatti Darn on the river Krishna by the State of Karnataka to a height of 524,056 metres. Several issues were framed (at p. 627). Issue No. 2 related to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and try the suit under the provisions of Article 262 of the Constitution and Sections 11 and 2(c) of the Inter-State Water disputes Act, 1956, The issue was conceded by the State of Maharashtra which had raised the issue. Over and above that, the Court was independently of the view (p. 640) that this Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and hear the suit and answered issue 2 in the affirmative.

Punjab's review petition was dismissed by us on the ground that the "so- called vital question with regard to the interpretation of Article 131 and Article 262 has been answered in the Constitution Bench decision and we are bound by the same," In the impugned judgment, we merely applied the interpretation of the Constitution Bench of the provisions of Article 135 and 262 to the facts of the case. There was no further interpretation of Article 131 and 262 to be done in the case before us which required the decision of a bench of five Judges under Article 145(5).

The objection as to the jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of Article 262 was specifically negatived in the judgment dated 15th January 2002 when it was held :

"...........the construction of SYL Canal has absolutely no connection with the sharing of water between the States and as such is not a ''water dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(c) and consequently the question of referring such dispute to a Tribunal does not arise. In this view of the matter, howsoever wide meaning the expression "water dispute" in Section 2(c) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act be given, the construction of the canal which is the subject-matter of dispute in the present suit cannot be held to be a "water dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act and as such. such a suit is not barred under Article 262 of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act".