9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (5) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irs across the said river and/or on any of its tributaries within the State and to restore supply of water to the State of Tamil Nadu as envisaged in the agreements dated 18th of February, 1924. To the petition States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala and the Union Territory of Pondicherry have been added as respondents 2 to 5 respectively. 2. In the petition it has been alleged that the petitioner's society is an organisation of agriculturists of Tamil Nadu and they are entitled to the lower reparian rights of Cauvery river for cultivating their lands over the years. The petitioner alleges that inflow into the Cauvery at the Mettur dam point as also down the stream has considerably diminished due to construction of new dams, projects and reservoirs across river Cauvery and its tributaries by the State of Karnataka within its own boundaries. In the year 1970 the State of Tamil Nadu had requested the Union of India to set up a tribunal and refer the question of equitable distribution of Cauvery waters under Section 3 of the Act. A suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution by the Tamil Nadu State in this Court was withdrawn on political consideration and in anticipation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same relief as the petitioner seeks. In view of the fact that the State of Tamil Nadu has now supported the petitioner entirely and without any reservation and the Court has kept the matter before it for about 7 years, now to throw out the petition at this stage by accepting the objection raised on behalf of the State of Karnataka that a petition of a society like the petitioner for the relief indicated is not maintainable would be ignoring the actual state of affairs, would be too technical an approach and in our view would be wholly unfair and unjust. Accordingly, we treat this petition as one in which the State of Tamil Nadu is indeed the petitioner though we have not made a formal order of transposition in the absence of a specific request. 7. The main stream of river Cauvery has its origin in the hills of Coorg. Some tributaries have their origin in the State of Kerala while some having their origin in Karnataka have joined the river. The river flows for a distance of about 300 Kms. within the State of Karnataka and almost an equal span within the State of Tamil Nadu before it ultimately joins the Bay of Bengal. It has not been disputed that Cauvery is an inter-State rive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction to consider the claim in the writ petition confined to the question of a reference of the dispute to a tribunal within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides: 4. (1) When any request under Section 3 is received from any State Government in respect of any water dispute and the Central Government is of opinion that the water dispute cannot be settled by negotiations, the Central Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal for the adjudication of the water dispute. (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. Undoubtedly Section 4 while vesting power in the Central Government for setting up a Tribunal has made it conditional upon the forming of the requisite opinion by the Central Government. The dispute in question is one over which the people and the State of Tamil Nadu have been clamouring for more than 20 years now. The matter has been pending in this Court for more than 6V2 years. It is on record that during this period as many as 26 sittings spread over many years have been held in which the Chief Ministers of the Karnataka an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24th of April, 1990, the counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu in clearest terms indicated that the Chief Minister of the State was not further prepared to join the negotiating table. An affidavit along with the telex message received from Madras supporting its stand has now been made a part of the record. 16. 26 attempts within a period of four to five years and several more adjournments by this Court to accommodate these attempts for negotiation were certainly sufficient opportunity and time to these two States at the behest of the center or otherwise to negotiate the settlement. Since these attempts have failed, it would be reasonable undoubtedly to hold that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiations. Yet, since the requisite opinion to be formed is of the Central Government as required by Section 4 of the Act when we reserved judgment on the 24th of April, 1990, we allowed two days' time to the learned Additional Solicitor General for the Central Government to report to the Court the reaction of the Central Government. Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India informed us on the 26th April, 1990, in the presence of the counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
