STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 28-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 2 S.C.R. 153 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Original Suit No. 1 of 2006) 
FEBRUARY 28, 2013. 
[R.M. LODHA, T.S. THAKUR AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A 
B 
Art. 131 of the Constitution read with 0. 23, rr. 1, 2 and 3 c 
of the Supreme Court Rules - Suit by State of Andhra 
Pradesh seeking to restrain the defendant State of 
Maharashtra from constructing Babhali barrage on river 
Godavari within the water spread area of Pochampad dam 
and utilizing the water through the proposed barrage - Held: 
0 
Maharashtra can utilize waters not exceeding 60 TMC for new 
projects, including any additional use over and above the 
sanctioRed or cleared utilization, as the case may be - The 
essence of Clause II (i) of the agreement is to put a cap on 
the right of Maharashtra to utilize waters of Godavari river E 
below the three dams mentioned therein up to Pochampad 
dam site to the extent of 60 TMC for new projects and in no 
case exceeding that limit - There is no demarcation made 
that the utilization of waters not exceeding 60 TMC for new 
projects by Maharashtra shall be from the flowing water -
State of Andhra Pradesh is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed F 
for in the suit - However, a three member supervisory 
committee as detailed in the judgment is constituted - The 
committee shall surprise the operation of Babhali barrage and 
Balegaon barrage in terms of the judgment. 
Art. 131 - suit for injunction filed by one State against 
other State - Guiding factors to grant injunction - Explained 
- Evidence - Burden of proof. 
153 
G 
H 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Words and Phrases: 
Expressions, 'dam', 'up to dam site', 'from the waters in 
the area of Gadavari basin' and 'from the waters of Godavari 
basin' - Connotation of. 
B 
The State of Andhra Pradesh filed the instant suit 
against State of Maharashtra, defendant no. 1 mainly. 
Union of India was impleaded as defendant no. 2 and 
States of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh and 
Orissa were impleaded as defendants no. 3 to 6. It was 
C the case of the plaintiff-State that pursuant to the 
agreement dated 6.10.1975 between the two States and 
the consequent award dated 27.11.1977 made by the 
Godavari Water Dispute Tribunal (GWDT), the plaiantiff 
completed Pochampad dam project on river Godavari 
o near the border of State of Maharashtra; that the State of 
Maharashtra was 
illegally and 
unauthorisedly 
constructing Babhali barrage within the reservoir bridge 
of Pochampad dam and its intention was to utilize the 
water of Pochampad dam by invasion of reservoir water 
E spread area by construction of Babhali barrage and 
allowing its farmers to utilize water for irrigation by lifting 
from Babhali pondage which would deprive the people 
of the plaintiff State of having water for irrigation and 
drinking purposes. The stand of defendant no. 1-State of 
F Maharashtra was that by agreement dated 6.10.1975, it 
was agreed that Maharashtra could utilize waters not 
exceeding 60 TMC for new projects including any 
additional use over and above the sanctioned utilization 
in terms of the agreement dated 6.10.1975 from the water 
in the area of Godavari basin below Paithan dam site and 
G upto Pochampad dam site on Godavari. Out of the ten 
issues framed in the suit, the parties felt that decision on 
issues nos. 5,6,7 and 8 would be crucial. Taking these 
issues together, the vital issue for consideration before 
the Court was with regard to: "Maharashtra's entitlement 
H to construct any project within the water spread area of 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. STATE OF 
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
Pochampad prqject." 
Disposing of the suit, the Court 
155 
A 
B 
HELD: 1.1 During the pendency of earlier disputes 
before the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, the riparian 
states entered into bilateral and multi-lateral agreements 
which were endorsed by the Tribunal in its Award dated 
27.11.1979 and based its decision on these agreements. 
The relevant agreements for the purpose of the instant 
case are the agreements dated 06.10.1975 and 19.12.1975. 
The Tribunal in Chapter IV of the award has noted that C 
the entire area drained by the river and its tributaries is 
called river basin. The expressions "Godavari basin", 
"Godavari river basin" and "Godavari drainage basin" in 
.. the award have been explained to mean the entire area 
drained by the Godavari river and its tributaries. From the o 
award

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