http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/03/1997

BENCH: CJI, S.B. MAJMUDAR, B.N. KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                   WITH I.A. NO. 6 OF 1996                          O R D E R      By judgment  dated 4.5.1990  in Writ Petition No. 13347 of 1983,  this Court  directed  the  Central  Government  to notify in  the  official  gazette  the  constitution  of  an appropriate Tribunal  for the  adjudication of water dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants.      By Notification  dated  2.6.1990,  a  Tribunal  namely; Cauvery  Water   Disputes  Tributes   Tribunal  (hereinafter referred  to   as  ’the   Tribunal’)  was   constituted  for adjudicating the  water disputes  regarding the  inter State river Cauvery  and the  river valley thereof. after the said Notification, interim application was filed by the plaintiff before the Tribunal praying for the following reliefs:      (a) direct  the State  of Karnataka      not to  impound or utilise water of      Cauvery  river  beyond  the  extent      impounded or utilised by them as on      31.5.1972, as   agreed  to  by  the      Chief Ministers of the basin States      and   the    Union   Minister   for      Irrigation and  Powers,  that  day;      and      (b) pass  and order  of  injunction      restraining the  State of Karnataka      from undertaking  any new projects,      dams,  reservoirs,   canals,  etc.,      and/or from proceeding further with      the construction of projects, dams,      reservoirs,  canal   etc.,  in  the      course  of  River  Cauvery  or  its      tributaries except with the consent      of Tamil  Nadu or with the specific      directions    of    this    Hon’ble      Tribunal; and      (c)  pass  such  further  or  other      orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may      be pleased  to in  the interest  of      justice.      By order  dated 5.1.1991,  the Tribunal  dismissed  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

aforesaid application as in its opinion, it could not decide the disputes  not  referred  to  it  including  the  dispute regarding grant of interim relief. The plaintiff, thereafter filed Civil  Appeal Nos.  303-304 of  1991 against  the said order. This  Court by judgment dated 26.4.1991 set-aside the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal and directed it to decide afresh the interim application on merits.      The Tribunal  on 25.6.1991 passed interim orders, inter alia directing  the State of karnataka to release water from its reservoirs  in Karnataka so as to ensure that 205 TMC of water was  available in  Tamil Nadu’s  Mettur Reservoir in a year from  June to  May. In  that year,  the order was to be effective from  1.7.1991. It  also  directed  the  following manner:      June 10.16 TMC   December 10.37 TMC      July 42.79 TMC   January   2.51 TMC      August 54.72 TMC February 2.17 TMC      September 29.93 TMC March  2.40 TMC      October 30.17 TMC   April  2.32 TMC      November 16.05 TMC  May 2.01 TMC      The present  suit was  instituted by  the plaintiff  on 14.5.1992  principally   seeking  the   enforcement  of  the Tribunal’s interim  order dated  25.6.1991. By  order  dated 7.9.1995, this Court framed the following issues:      "(1)  Whether   in  view   of   the      provisions contained in Article 262      of the  Constitution of  India  and      Section 11 of the Inter-State Water      Disputes Act, 1956, the suit is not      maintainable?      (2) Whether, a suit for enforcement      of and  interim order of the Inter-      State   Water   Disputes   Tribunal      (constituted under  the Inter-State      Water Disputes Act, 1956) is a suit      relating to  a  water  dispute?  If      yes, what is its effect?      (3) Whether,  the  jurisdiction  of      this Court  under Article 13 of the      Constitution  of  India  cannot  be      invoked unless  the  Cauvery  Water      Disputes Tribunal  has  recorded  a      finding  the   there  has   been  a      violation  of   its   order   dated      25.6.1991 and/or 3.4.1992?      (4) Whether,  by  the  order  dated      3.4.1992 the Cauvery Water Disputes      Tribunal  can   be  said   to  have      modified its  order dated  3.4.1992      the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal      can be  said to  have modified  its      order dated 25.6.1991 under Section      5(3)  of   the  Inter-State   Water      Disputes Act, 1956? If Yes, what is      its effect?      (5) Whether,  it  is  open  to  the      State of  Karnataka to unilaterally      reduce the monthly release of water      required to  made as  per the order      dated  25.6.1991   red  with  order      dated  3.4.1992   under   ’distress      clause’   stated   to   have   been      provided by the Tribunal?      (6)  Whether,   the  plaintiff   is      entitled  to  all  of  any  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    reliefs claimed  in paragraphs  a.b      and c of the plaint?      (7) What order?"      The parties  did not  desire to  lead any oral evidence and the suit was set-down for hearing.      During  the  pendency  of  this  suit,  the  Court  was informed the  efforts are  being  made  to  bring  about  an amicable  settlement   between  the   parties.  However,  no information is available with regard to the final outcome of the efforts  in this  behalf. Inasmuch  as the suit is being referred to  Constitution Bench,  it is possible that in the meantime, an amicable settlement may be arrived at.      Having considered  the submissions  urged on  behalf of both the  parties, it  appears to us that this suit involves substantial question  of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and,  therefore, it will be appropriate if this suit is  heard and  decided by  a Constitution Bench of this Court. Ordered accordingly.