2000 (4) TMI 841 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is barred by Article 262(2) of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956?
2. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as not disclosing cause of action?
3. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as seeking reliefs contrary to the Report and Decision of the KWDT?
4. What is the "decision" of the KWDT binding on the parties under Section 6 of the Act in relation to Scheme 'B' and use of surplus water?
5. Whether reference to Scheme 'B' in the reports of the KWDT discloses a complete scheme and whether such a scheme is capable of implementation at this stage?
6. Is it just, fair, and equitable to implement Scheme 'B' at this stage?
7. Whether the suit seeking the implementation of Scheme 'B' is maintainable?
8. Whether insertion of Section 6A in 1980 in the ISWD Act, 1956, ipso facto entitles Karnataka to seek implementation of Scheme 'B'?
9. Whether the right of Andhra Pradesh to utilize surplus waters is reviewable in the present proceedings?
10. Whether the liberty to use surplus water precludes utilization of surplus water by Andhra Pradesh by means of projects of permanent nature?
11. Whether the decision of the KWDT entitles Andhra Pradesh to execute various projects?
12. Is the suit unnecessary and premature as there can be a review of the orders of the Tribunal after A.D. 2000?
13. To what reliefs, if any, the Plaintiff is entitled to?

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Bar by Article 262(2) and Section 11 of the Act
The suit is not barred by Article 262(2) of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. The Court held that the assertions in the plaint and the relief sought do not constitute a water dispute under Section 2(c) of the Act, thereby not ousting the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 131 of the Constitution.

Issue 2: Cause of Action
The Court found that the plaintiff-State has a cause of action for filing the suit based on the refusal of the defendant States to consent to the sharing of surplus waters and for the implementation of Scheme 'B'. The suit is maintainable as it discloses a cause of action.

Issue 3: Reliefs Contrary to KWDT Report and Decision
The relief sought in the plaint cannot be held to be contrary to the report as the report submitted by the tribunal did contain both schemes-Scheme 'A' and Scheme 'B'. However, it is contrary to the decision of the tribunal as the tribunal resolved the dispute by formulating Scheme 'A' for distribution of water on a mass allocation basis.

Issue 4: Decision of KWDT Binding on Parties
The Court held that Scheme 'B' framed by the Tribunal is not the decision of the Tribunal and as such, was not required to be notified under Section 6 and, consequently, cannot be enforced at the behest of the plaintiff.

Issue 5: Completeness and Implementation of Scheme 'B'
Scheme 'B' cannot be held to be a decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal itself stated that Scheme 'B' should be implemented either by agreement of the parties or by legislation by Parliament, and the Tribunal refrained from making it a part of the Final Order.

Issue 6: Equity of Implementing Scheme 'B'
Implementing Scheme 'B' at this stage is not just, fair, or equitable. The Court noted that Scheme 'A' has been in operation for over two decades and provided for a review after May 31, 2000.

Issue 7: Maintainability of Suit for Scheme 'B'
The suit seeking the implementation of Scheme 'B' is not maintainable as Scheme 'B' is not a decision of the Tribunal and was not notified under Section 6 of the Act.

Issue 8: Entitlement under Section 6A
The insertion of Section 6A does not entitle Karnataka to seek the implementation of Scheme 'B'. The Central Government's power under Section 6A is not executive but legislative in nature, and the Court cannot direct the Parliament to legislate.

Issue 9: Reviewability of Andhra Pradesh's Right to Surplus Waters
The right of Andhra Pradesh to utilize surplus waters is not reviewable in the present proceedings. The liberty granted to Andhra Pradesh does not confer any right beyond the allocable share.

Issue 10: Utilization of Surplus Water by Andhra Pradesh
The liberty to use surplus water does not preclude Andhra Pradesh from utilizing surplus water by means of projects of a permanent nature, provided such projects are cleared by the Central Government and other competent authorities.

Issue 11: Execution of Projects by Andhra Pradesh
The decision of the KWDT does not entitle Andhra Pradesh to execute various projects without proper clearance from the Central Government and other competent authorities.

Issue 12: Prematurity of Suit
The suit is not premature as the review provided for after 2000 A.D. is in relation to the allocation made under Scheme 'A' and has nothing to do with Scheme 'B'.

Issue 13: Reliefs to Plaintiff
The Court concluded that the reliefs sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted. However, it observed that the disputes for sharing waters of an inter-State river are complex and suggested the constitution of a Tribunal to resolve the long-standing water dispute in the Krishna basin.

Conclusion:
The suit is dismissed with observations that any of the riparian States can approach the Central Government to constitute a Tribunal for resolving the disputes. There would be no order as to costs.