LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

KACHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 22-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, C.K. PRASAD

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 491 
). .;,, 
KACHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 
I.A. NO. 5 OF 2011 
IN 
4 
-~ 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s).5822 of 2006) 
B 
JULY 22, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
c 
WATER Disputes: 
Narmada Waters. - Allocation of to Kachchh district -
Construction of Kachchh Branch canal - Interim application 
,) 
in an SLP seeking to appoint a Committee of experts to 
D 
consider alternative systems of mode of conveyance of 
Narmada waters through Kachchh Branch canal to the region 
of Kachchh - HELD: The prayer for a/location of adequate 
water in Kuchchh district is not one which can be a matter of 
judicial review - It is for the executive authorities to look into 
this matter - There must be judicial restraint in such matters 
E 
- The Court is not inclined to grant any of the prayers made 
in the interlocutory application - Application dismissed -
Interlocutory applications. 
, 1 
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. Vs. 
F 
Chander Hass & Anr. 2007 (12) SCR 1084 = (2008) 1 SCC 
683ยท relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2007 (12) SCR 1084 
relied on 
para 4 
-,!.. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. 5-6 of 2011. 
G 
IN 
SLP (Civil} No. 5822 of 2006. 
491 
H 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2005 of the High 
B 
c 
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 
3358 of 1999. 
R.S. Suri, N.L. Ganpathi, K.S. Prasad, Chanchal Kumar 
Ganguli for the Petitioners. 
Shyam Diwan, Hemantika Wahi, Ashwini Kumar for the 
Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s)/petitioner(s). 
This interlocutory application for directions is filed in the 
special leave petition. The special leave petition has been filed 
D against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 
04.10.2005 dismissing the writ petition filed by way of Public 
Interest Litigation. The prayer in the Writ Petition related to the 
alleged grievance of meagre allocation of water from Sardar 
Sarovar Dam by the State Government of Gujarat to the district 
E of Kuchchh which is alleged to constitute 1/4th of the total area 
of the State of Gujarat and is alleged to be a drought prone 
district. 
By means of the impugned judgment the Division Bench 
of the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there 
F are no judicially manageable standards for adjudication for 
allocation of water in favour of any region within the State. The 
Government is the best judge to decide how much water should 
be released from the Narmada Canal to Kuchchh and how 
much water is to be left for other regions. All these decisions 
G require delicate balancing and consideration of complex social 
and economical considerations which cannot be brought under 
the judicial scrutiny. In fact, the State Government has accepted 
the decision of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal which 
cannot be said to be arbitrary. 
H 
Now, this interlocutory application for interim directions has 
. . 
. . 
โ€ข 
~CHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI & ORS. 
493 
v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 
~ "' 
been filed with the following prayers :-
A 
"(a) to appoint a committee comprising of experts to go 
into the pros and cons of various alternative systems of 
mode of conveyance of Narmada waters through Kachchh 
Branch Canal to the region of Kachchh with reference to 
B 
.A 
โ€ข 
cost benefit ratio and other relevant aspects and be further 
please to direct the committee to submit a detailed report 
in this regard to the Hon'ble Court, and this Hon'ble Court 
be further pleased to pass further appropriate orders on 
receipt of such expert report. 
c 
(b) restrain the respondents from commencing the 
construction of proposed Kachchh Branch Canal until the 
aforesaid exercise is completed by this Hon'ble Court. 
) 
-\ 
(c) direct the respondents to consider the relative cost 
advantage among various methods for transportation of D 
water through Kuchchh Branch Canal. 
(d) direct the respondents to consider the relative cost 
advantage in transporting water through Kuchchh Branch 
by pipeline as suggested by ewe. 
E 
(e) direct the respondents to present facts and figures on 
the basis of which the decision to transport the water 
through Kuchchh Branch Canal has been arrived at by the 
respondents." 
.. 
1 
We are of the opinion that the prayer for allocation of 
F 
adequate water in Kuchchh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.