STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 527 · Decided: 27-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 11 S.C.R. 527 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Original Suit No. 2 of 1996) 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
A 
B 
Articles 131(b) and 363 -
Suit - Plaintiff (State of c 
Himacha/ Pradesh) claiming its share in the power generated 
in Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects - Relief claimed against 
Union of India (D-1), State of Punjab (D-2), State of Haryana 
(D-3), State of Rajasthan (D-4) and Union Territory of 
Chandigarh (D-5) - Held: As regards submergence of large 
0 
area in construction of the projects, plaintiff cannot make any 
claim on the basis of the rights of Raja of Bilaspur prior to 
the merger of the Bilaspur State with the Dominion of India -
Further, when agreements between the States of Punjab and 
Rajasthan were made for construction of the Projects, the 
predecessor of the plaintiff was a Union Territory and it was 
the Union of India which had the right over the water and land 
therein and, therefore, the plaintiff can have no cause of 
action to make a claim to power from the said Projects on the 
basis of submergence of large areas in construction of the 
projects -However, the plaintiff as a successor State of the 
composite State of Punjab, has the statutory right uls 78 of 
the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 to the utilization of power 
and also the constitutional right to equal treatment vis-a-vis 
the other successor States and, as such, has cause of action 
E 
F 
to file and maintain the suit as against D-2, D-3 and D-5 -
G 
More over, as uls 78 (1) the Central Government failed to 
determine the rights of the plaintiff, it has cause of action to 
fi.le the suit against D-1 also - However, as D-4 was never a 
527 
H 
528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 
A part of composite State of Punjab, "its rights are not affected 
by the 1966 Act and, thus, plaintiff has no cause of action to 
file the suit against D-4 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - 0. 
23, r. 6(a)-Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 - s. 78. 
8 
Articles 131(b) and 363 - Suit - Plaintiff-State claiming 
its share in the power generated in Bhakra-Nangal Project, 
on the basis of submergence of territories of erstwhile State 
of Bilaspur, which was one of the constituents of the plaintiff-
State - Held: Bila spur Merger Agreement dated 15. 8. 1948 
does not contain any provisions which have any relevance to 
C the claim of the plaintiff to its share to the power generated in 
the Bhakra-Nanga/ Project -
However, the claim of the 
plaintiff is also based on the Punjab Reorganization Act, 
1966 and the provisions of the Constitution and such a claim 
is not barred under Article 363. 
D 
Articles 131(b) and 262 (2) -
Suit - Plaintiff-State 
claiming its share in power generated in Bhakra-Nangal and 
Beas Projects -Maintainability of -
Held: The relief claimed 
does not relate to inter-State river water or use thereof but 
E pertains to sharing of power generated in the said projects and 
such a dispute was not barred under Article 262 (2) of the 
Constitution rlw s. 11 of Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. 
Article 131 (b) -
Suit -Limitation -
Plaintiff-State 
claiming its share in power generated in Bhakra-Nanga/ and 
F Beas Projects - Suit filed in 1996 - Resisted as barred by 
limitation - Held: Suit was not barred by limitation, delay or 
/aches, as the Article does not prescribe any period of 
limitation to file such a claim - Moreover, there has been no 
final a/location of power from the said projects to the plaintiff 
G as yet and the arrangements were only interim or ad hoc -
Until a final decision was taken the claim of plaintiff for 
appropriate allocation of power from the two Projects was alive 
and cannot be held to be stale or belated - Limitation - Delay! 
/aches. 
H 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. UNION OF INDIA 529 
& ORS. 
PUNJAB REORGANIZATION ACT, 1966: 
s. 78 - Rights and liabilities in regard to Bhakra-Nangal 
and Beas Projects - Suit under Article 131 of the Constitution 
- Plaintiff-State claiming its share in the power generated in 
A 
the two Projects - Maintainability of - Held: s. 78(1) confers 
8 
a legal right on the plaintiff as a successor State to receive 
and utilize the power generated in Bhakra-Nangal and Beas 
Projects - As there is only a 'tentative, ad hoc or interim 
arrangement' arrived at in the meeting held on 17.4.1967 and 
there is no final agreement between the successor States of 
the composite State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.