LexATMA LINGA REDDY AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 741 ATMA UNGA REDDY AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA (Writ Petition (C) No. 197 of 2005) JULY 10, 2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] A B Inter State River Water Disputes Act, 1956: s.11 - Juris- diction to entertain - Held: Not maintainable - s. 11 bars juris- diction of all Courts including Supreme court to entertain ad- c ;udication of any water disputes - The effect of the provisions of s. 11 read with Article 262 of Constitution is that the entire judicial power of the State and, of the courts including that of the Supreme court to adjudicate upon original dispute or com- plaint with respect to the use, distribution and '-::ontrol of the D water river valleys has been vested in the Tribunal appointed under s. 4 - Plea that the bar envisaged in s. 11 would not cover cases of private individuals as pro bona publico and that its application is limited to States not tenable - Constitution of In- dia, 1950- Articles 262, 131. Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 32, 262, 131 - Writ petition seeking adjudication on river water disputes between States - Maintainability of - Held: Not maintainable - s.11 of 1956 Act bars jurisdiction of all Courts including Supreme Court E to entertain adjudiction of any water disputes - On facts, the F question of construction of Mini Hyde/ Project, is before the Tribunal constituted under the 1956 Act and the matter is sub iudice - Tribunal has also considered various applications and passed orders from time to time and therefore for this rea- son a/so writ petition is liable to be dismissed - Inter State G River Water Disputes Act, 1956 - s11. Administrative law: Public authority/State - Duty of, be- fore the Court - Held: It is the duty of State orpublic authority to place all the facts before the Court. 741 H 742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A The present Writ Petition in the nature of Public In- terest Litigation invoking Article 3.2 of the Constitution was filed by residents of District Mehboobnagar in the State of Andhra Pradesh wherein the petitioners prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order for restraining respon- 8 dent no.2, State of Karnataka and respondent no.4 from constructing a Mini Hydro Power Project at Rajolibanda Diversion Scheme (RDS) by quashing and cancelling the power project. According to petitioners, the State of Karnataka acted illegally and unlawfully in sanctioning c and approving the Power Project in 2002-03 in favour of respondent No. 4-a private party. Due to the said project, sufficient water for drinking purpose and for irrigation fa- cilities was not available to the residents and farmers of District Mehboobnagar of the State of Andhra Pradesh. It 0 was alleged that the Managing Director of respondent no.4 company was related to the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the project was entrusted to respon- dent No. 4 with a view to oblige him. It was further alleged that the Power Project would E remain in operation for a period of thirty years from the date of commissioning of the power house with a stipula- tion for renewal at the option of the private company for a further period of twenty years. F Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the light of the scheme as envisaged by the Makers of the Constitution as also by Parliament under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 in connection with water disputes between inter-States, it G is clear that such disputes cannot be made subject mat- ter of petition either in a High Court under Article 226 or in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Found- ing Fathers of the Constitution were aware and conscious of sensitive nature of inter-State disputes relating to wa- ters. They, therefore, provided machinery for adjudication H ATMA LINGA REDDY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 743 of such disputes relating to waters of inter-State rivers or A river valleys. By enacting Article 262, they empowered Par- liament to enact a law providing for adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of waters of any inter-State river or river valley. v. They, however, did not stop there. They went ahead and B empowered Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of all Courts including the final Court of the country in such disputes. The intention of Framer.: of the Constitution, was clear, obvious and apparent. It was thought prope
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.