LexSTATE OF TAMILNADU ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF TAMILNADU ETC. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. APRIL 26, 1991 [N.M. KASLIWAL, M.M. PUNCHHI AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] A Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956: ss. 3:5.11. Notification dated B 2.6.1990-Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal-Applications for interim reliefs-Whether has jurisdiction to entertain and grant. " Constitution of India: Article 262-Adjudication of disputes relating to inter-State rivers-Law to be made by Parliament- Supreme Court's jurisdiction-Exclusion of-Whether arises. C Statutory Inierpretation: Supreme Court's power to interpret statute and decide Parameters, scope, power, and jurisdiction of a statutory tribunal. The Government of Tamil Nadu sent a complaint dated 6. 7 .1986 D to the Central Government under s. 3 of the Inter-State Water Disputes ' --,.._. Act, 1956 on the ground that its interests were being prejudiciously and injuriously affected by the executive action taken by the State of Karnataka, and by failure of that State to implement the terms of the agreements relating to the use, distribution and control of the waters of the river Cauvery. ' E The Central Government by its notification dated 2.6.1990 con- stituted the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and referred to it for adjudication the water disputes regarding the Inter-State river Cau- very, and the river valley thereof emerging from the complaint dated 6.7.1986 rded by the State of Tamil Nadu.. F During the pendency of the reference the Government of Tamil Nadu rded an application before the Tribunal praying that the State of Karnataka be directed not to impound or utilize waters of Cauvery river beyond the extent impounded or utilised by it as on 31.5.1972 as was agreed to by the Chief Ministers of Basin Stales and the Union G Minister for Irrigation and Power; and that the State of Karnataka be restrained from undertaking any new projects, dams, reservoirs, canals etc. and/or proceeding further with any such work in the Cauvery Basin. 501 H ., 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R. A On 8.9.1990 the Union Territory of Pondicherry filed an applica- lion for an interim order directing the States of Karnataka and Kerala to release, during the months of September to March, 9.355 T.M.C. of water already agreed to. ¥ The Government of Tamil Nadu filed another emergent petition B to direct the State of Karnataka to release at least 20 T .M.C. of waters as a first instalment pending final orders on its earlier application as the Samba crop could not be maintained without additional supplies at Mettur Reservoir. The States of Karnataka and Kerala opposed the applications y- c and raised prilimtnary objections that the Tribunal constituted under the Act had limited jurisdiction having only those powers which had been conferred on it under the Act and there was no provision of law which authorised or conferred any jurisdiction on it to grant any interim relief. D The Tribunal held that it was authorised to decide only the 'water dispute' or disputes which had been referred to it, and as from the complaint dated 6. 7.1988 made by the State of Tamil Nadu, reference of _,,-- an interim dispute in regard to the release of waters by Karnataka Government from year to year subsequent to the date of request made by State of Tamil Nadu could not be inferred, it could not entertain E ·.the prayer for inter relief unless the dispute relating to the same was specifically referred to it. The applications were dismissed as not maintainable. • In the appeals to this Court by States of Tamil Nadu and Union '"' • Territory of Pondicherry, the respondent States of Karnataka and F Kerala raised an objection that this Court had no jurisdiction to enter- tain any appeal against the impugned order of the Tribunal as Article 262 of the Constitution clearly provided for, adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-State rivers to be decided by law made by Parliament in this regard. G The appellants' case was that they have not come to this Court to 4 get a decision on merits of any dispute which is already pending before the Tribunal but their grievance is only to the extent that the Tribunal wrongly decided that it bad no jurisdiction to entertain any application for interim relief because such dispute was not referred to it in the reference. They contended that this Court has jurisdiction to decide the H scope of the powers of the Tribunal under the A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.