9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Dispute over boundaries between States of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh; Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: 1. Boundary Dispute: The suit involves a dispute regarding the boundaries between the States of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh, specifically concerning certain villages. Orissa claims that Andhra Pradesh trespassed upon villages falling within Orissa's territory. 2. Preliminary Objections: Andhra Pradesh raised objections, including the suit's maintainability before the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. 3. Historical Notifications: Notifications from 1920, 1923, and 1927, along with a 1943 agreement between erstwhile Provinces of Madras and Orissa, form the basis of the dispute. The parties disagree on the effect and validity of these notifications and agreements. 4. Jurisdiction under Article 131: The central issue revolves around the interpretation of Article 131 of the Constitution of India, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between states. However, this jurisdiction is subject to limitations and exclusions outlined in the proviso to Article 131. 5. Proviso Interpretation: The proviso to Article 131 restricts the Court's jurisdiction from entertaining disputes arising from agreements, treaties, or similar instruments entered into before the Constitution's commencement. The Court analyzed whether the disputes in this case fell within this exclusionary clause. 6. Instrument Analysis: The Court examined the nature of the instruments involved, including the historical notifications and agreements, to determine if the disputes arose out of these instruments, thus falling within the proviso's restrictions. 7. Exclusionary Clause Application: After considering the historical context and legal principles, the Court concluded that the disputes raised in the suit were excluded from the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 131's proviso. 8. Dismissal of Suit: Consequently, the Court dismissed the suit, citing that the disputes fell within the exclusionary clause of Article 131, thereby precluding the Court from adjudicating on the matter. The Court emphasized that the dismissal did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the case. 9. Status Quo Maintenance: An earlier order for maintaining status quo between the parties was acknowledged, with the parties consenting to continue this arrangement until varied by an appropriate authority in accordance with the law.
|
