LexDELHI WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL UNDER TAKING AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DELHI WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL UNDER A TAKING AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. FEBRUARY 29, 1996 [KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 32 and 262. Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 : States Water Dispute-Memorandum of Understanding regarding- River-Upper riparian States using water for irrigation purposes-Cannot deny the lower riparian States use of water for quenching the thirst. Contempt-Public Interest Litigation-Seeking directions to State con- cerned to maintain regular flow of water in Jamuna River so that Delhi residents do not face problem of drinking wafe,-./nterim order by Court directing the States for a/location of water to Delhi with immediate ef- fect-Non compliance with order of Supreme Court-Ground given for non compliance that under the Memorandum of understanding Delhi was not entitled to extra water-Held volte-face by State deserves strong disap- proval-Assurance given by Advocate General for compliance with Court ordei-Consequential dropping of contempt proceedings--Directions issued to State concerned to ensure that Delhi continue to get as much water for domestic use through river Jamuna which can be filled in the two water reservoirs and treatment plants at Wazirabad and Hyderpur-Held Court's order was not dependent on memorandum of understanding-Held order was not only binding on parties but also on upper Jamuna River Board. State of Connecticut v. Commonwealth of Massachuhetts, 75 Law Ed. 602; American Jurisprudence, Vol. 78 2d p.293; C.D. Harris v. John Brooks,. 54 American Law Reports 2d series p. 1440, referred to. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition No. 111 of 1995. AND Contempt Petition No. 113 of 1995. 13 B 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R. A IN Writ Petition (C) No. 537 of 1992. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). B D.P. Gupta, Solicitor General, Arnn Jaitley, Gopal Subramaniam, N.N. Goswamy, V.C. Mahajan, Shahid Rizvi, Ms. Shabnam Lone, (Comdr. Sureshwar D. Sinha) in person, (Y.P. Mahajan) for Mrs. Anil Katiyar, K.B. Rohtagi, Ram Prakash Gupta, H.L. Sibal, Sunil Gupta, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Ms. Sushma Suri, R.B. Mishra, M.K. Roy, Sudhanshu, C Kamlendra Misra, B.K. Prasad, S.A. Matto, S.M. Ashri, Aruneshwar Gupta, (NP) and Naresh K. Sharma for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered: Water is a gift of nature. Human hand cannot be permitted to D convert this bounty into a curse, an oppression. The primary use to which the water is put being drinking, it would be mocking the nature to force the.people who live on the bank of a river to remain thirsty, whereas others incidentally placed in an advantageous position are allowed to use the water for non-drinking purpose. A river has to flow through some territory; E and it would be travesty of justice if the upper-riparian States were to use its water for purpose like irrigation, denying the lower riparian States the benefit of using the water even for quenching the thirst of its residents. 2. The plight of residents of Delhi in not getting sufficient water even for drinking, led Commodore S.D. Sinha to approach this Court under F Article 32 of the Constitution by filing a public interest petition, which came to be registered as Writ Petition (C) No.537 of 1992 seeking, inter alia, a direction to the concerned Governments to maintain regular flow of water, in J amuna river so that the residents of Delhi do not face problem of drinking water, which, however, was being so faced because of non- G release of sufficient quantity of water from Tajewala Head. As intricate questions of law were found to be involved, on the suggestion of the court, Commodore Sinha agreed to have the guidance and assistance of a senior lawyer through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. 3. It is this which found Senior Advocate, Shri K.K. Yenugopal H before us. The learned counsel took pains to bring to our notice by I 1 DELHIWATERSUPPLY ANDSEWAGEDISPOSALUNDERTAKINGv. STATE 15 referring to some decisions of the American Court, as well as to some A writings, that drinking is the most beneficial use of water and this need is so paramount that it cannot be made subserviant to any other use of water, like irrigation. So, the right to use of water for domestic purpose would prevail over other needs. It is because of this that it was contended that what has been state
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.