LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... • -! ORIGINAL SUIT NO. l OF 1997 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. AND ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 2 OF 1997 STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKAAND ORS. APRIL 25, 2000 [S.B. MAJMUDAR, G.B. PATTANAIK, V.N. KHARE, RP. SETHI AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] Constitution of India, Articles 131, 262 r/w Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956, Ss. 4, 5(2) and (3), 6, 6-A-lnter-State water dispute-Krishna River Basin-Sharing of Water.r between riparian States of Kamataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra-Disputes refen-ed to Tribunal-Tribunal giving report in December, 1973 incorporating Final Order-Upon references made by the States under S. 5(3) Tribunal giving further report in May, 1976 containing modified Final Order-In both reports two schemes evolved- Scheme A making mass allocation inf avour of three states of dependable flow at 75% which was 2060 TMC-Scheme 'B' evolved for giving effect to allocation on percentage basis. in surplus and deficit years of jbw-Andhra Pradesh not agreeing to constitution of Krishna Valley Authority ( KVA) for implementation of Scheme 'B'-Tribunal therefore not making Scheme 'B' part of Final Order-Kamatakafiling suit against riparian states and Union of India for a decree that sU1plus water in excess of 2060 TMC be shared in accordance with Scheme 'B'; a mandat01y injunction to Union of India to notify Scheme 'B' and establish the 'KVA' and an injunction restraining Andhra Pradesh from continuing to execute projects till Scheme 'B' was effectively implemented-Held, Scheme 'B' was not a decision of the 'Tribunal and was not capable of being implemented by a mandatory injunction from the Supreme Court. Andhra Pradesh filing suit claiming that project-wise allocation had to be read into the mass allocation of dependable flow made by Tn'hunal and for A B c D E F G a declaration that Kamataka's construction of the Almatti Dam to a height of H 301 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R. A 524.256 meters constituted an infraction of Tribunal's decision-Andhra Pradesh, inter alia, praying for injunction restraining Kamataka from coriStructing Almatti Dam up to a height of 524.256 meters-Held, the Tribu:- nal' s decision only made mass allocation and not pmject-wise allocatiOn; further held, as long as total user of water by Kamataka did not exceed mass B c D E allocation, Tribunal's decision was not violated and no mandatory injunction could be granted; there was no bar to raising of the height of Almatti Dam up to 519.6 meters subject to clearances by appmpriat~ authority of Central Government. Constitution of India, A1ticles 131, 262(2) r/w Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956, Ss. 2(c) and 11-Maintainability of Suit-Kamatakafiling suit for decree that Scheme 'B' which did not form part of Final Order of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal should be notified and given effect to-Defendants Andhra Pradesh and Union of India contending that this was a fresh water dispute within the meaning of S. 2( c) of the Act attracting the bar under Article 262-Held, the asse1tions in the plaint and the relief sought for did not constitute a dispute under s. 2( c) of the Act and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under A1ticle 131 was not ousted. Constitution of India, Articles 131, 142 and 262(2) 1iw Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956, ss. 2(c), 3(A) and II-Relief of injunction against plaintiff sought by defendant-Maintainability of-Maharashtra in additional written statement expressing apprehension of submergence of land in Maharashtra on account of raising of height of Almatti Dam by Karnataka up to 524.256 and praying for injunction against it-Held, the dispute raised would be a com- plaint within the meaning of s. 3( A) and a water dispute under s. 2( c) of the Act; F Supreme Court could not entertain it under either Article 131 or 142. G Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956, s. 6-Tribunal giving report and decision in 1973 and further report and decision in 1976-Andhra Pradesh filing suit with prayer for declaration that both reports and decisions in their entirety were binding on the three riparian states~tates agreeing to partial dec1T!e in terms of saidprayer-Kamataka contending that Scheme 'B' fanning part of report, its suit seeking enforcement of Scheme 'B' could not be resisted by Andhra Pradesh in view of pa1tial decree-Andhra Pradesh contending that Tribunal's report was like a judgment and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.