STATE OF HARYANA versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 849 · Decided: 04-06-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
·STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
JUNE 4, 2004 
[RUMA PAL AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 131, 144, 145 and 202/Punjab 
Reorganisation Act, 1966; Section 78/Supreme Court Rules, 1966; Order 
XXIII Rule 6 and Order XL VII Rule 6 : 
A 
B 
c 
Apportionment of river waters between Haryana and Punjab-
Construction of Satluj-Yamuna Link Canal-Portion of the Canal not 
completed by Punjab-Suit filed byHaryana for directions to Punjab and 
another suit filed by Punjab challenging Section 78 of the Act-Supreme 
Court decreed the suit of Haryana and issued a mandatory injunction 
directing Punjab to complete construction of the canal within one year else D 
Union Government to get it done-Rivew Petition-Dismissed by Supreme 
Court-Application for enforcement of the decree-Held : Supreme Court 
has been conferred with exclusive jurisdiction to decide any dispute 
between the States/States and Centre provided the dispute involves question 
on which the existence/extent of a legal right depends-However, the E 
phrase 'cause of action 'as appears in Order XX/// Rule 6(a) could be 
construed in the context to Article 131 since it gives effect to limitation 
implicit in the Article itself-Hence, the Rule can not be held to be ultra 
vires Article 131-Neither the circumstances on the basis of which the 
decree was passed changed nor the grounds founded the decree have F 
changed-Period specified in the decree has long since been over-Refusal 
to comply with the decree of the Supreme Court under Article 131 amounts 
not only to contempt but would also shake the very foundation of the 
Constitution-Union of India worked out a contingent action plan 10 
complete work on the canal-Union of India to carry out the work as G 
planned within the specified time frame-Directions issued-Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908-Sections 20 & 51(e). 
Specific Relief Act, 163; Sections 36 to 42 : 
'Temporary injunction' and 'Permanent injunction '-Distinction H 
849 
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A between. 
B 
c 
D 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 : 
Decree-Meaning of-Discussed. 
Doctrine of res-judicata-Applicability of-Held: Applicable, since 
both issues pertaining to jurisdiction of the Court have been considered 
and decided inter-par/es by the Supreme Court and order of withdrawal 
was not conditional one. 
Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956; Section 14 : 
Section 14-Constitutionality of-Held : since grounds given in 
support of challenge ex-facie and no cause of action has beer disclosed 
to challenge constitutional validity, the challenge rejected in limine. 
A notification was issued by the Union of India under the 
provisions of Punjab Reorganisation 
Act inter alia providing for 
division of the river water between the States of Punjab and Haryana; 
In connection thereto, the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal was required fo 
E be constructed through both the States. State ofHaryana had completed 
portion of the Canal passing through its territory. However, the State 
of Punjab did not complete its portion of the canal. Haryana filed a 
suit seeking directions to Punjab for construction of the canal. Punjab 
in turn filed a suit challenging Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation 
F Act. During pendency of the suits, an agreement was entered into 
between the State of Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan, which provided 
that the Sutlej-Yamuna Canal Project would be implemented in a time 
bound manner, within a maximum period of two years from signing 
of the agreement and the suits were withdrawn. However, the portion 
of the canal in Punjab remained incomplete. Later, a settlement - the 
G Punjab Settlement - was arrived at, whereby construction of the canal 
was agreed to be completed by Punjab within the stipulated period; 
and the issues relating to the usage, share and allocation of the Ravi-
Beas water referred to the Waters Tribunal. Since Pu.njab could not 
complete the construction, Haryana filed a suit seeking a decree of 
H mandatory injunction compelling the State of Punjab to complete the 
STATEv. STATE 
851 
construction. This Court decreed the suit directing the State of Punjab A 
to complete the construction of the canal. Instead of complying with 
the directions of this Court, Punjab preferred a Review Petition, which 
was dismissed. Later, when Haryana filed a petition for execution of 
the decree, Punjab filed a suit for declaring Section 78(1) of the Punjab 
Reorganisatio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.