26 October 2004
Supreme Court
Download

GANDHI SAHITYA SANGH TRUST Vs UNION OF INDIA .

Case number: C.A. No.-006952-006954 / 2004
Diary number: 17922 / 2004
Advocates: Vs R. AYYAM PERUMAL


1

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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6952-6954 of 2004

PETITIONER: Gandhi Sahitya Sangh Trust

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors.  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/10/2004

BENCH: RUMA PAL  & ARUN KUMAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 17562-17564 of  2004)

RUMA PAL, J.

Leave granted.

       The Cauvery  Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted  under Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.   It consists of three Members.  Apart from the Chairman,  there are two other Members, who have been nominated by  the Chief Justice of India.  These two nominees were at the  time of their nomination judges of High Courts. The Tribunal has been functioning since 1990. The  present appeals have been preferred challenging three  orders dated 6th July, 2004, 23rd July, 2004 and 3rd August,  2004. The first order was passed by two Members of the  Tribunal. Another Order was passed by the Chairman on the  same day i.e. on 6th July, 2004.  The reason for the two  separate orders was a dispute between the Members of the  Tribunal and the Chairman relating to the holding of an  inspection of the Cauvery River Basin. By their order, the  two Members directed the parties namely, the Governments  of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Union Territory of  Pondichery to submit their proposed itinerary for the  inspection in respect of the Cauvery Basin falling within their  respective territories clearly indicating therein specific places  which they would like the Tribunal to visit within one week.  It  was also specified that the Tribunal may inspect other spots/  sites in the basin either on their own or at the instance of  assessors appointed under Section 4(3) of the Act which  would help the Members to arrive at a just, fair and proper  decision in the matter.  The other directions are immaterial  for the purposes of these appeals. As far as the Chairman is  concerned, he recorded that he had no objection to the other  Members of the Tribunal going for inspection but recorded  that inspection was not necessary primarily on the ground  that there would be further delay and unnecessary expense  involved.   On 20th July, 2004, the State of Karnataka filed an  application bringing on record that it would make all  necessary arrangements with regard to the places in  Karnataka proposed to be visited by the two Members. Prior  intimation was asked for, so that necessary and adequate  arrangements could be made.  It was further stated that on

2

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

receipt of the intimation of the places decided upon by the  two Members a detailed itinerary would be drawn up and  submitted to the Registrar to facilitate the working out of the  directions of the two Members.  It was also recorded that the  State of Karnataka had already intimated sites in respect of  which inspection should be carried out which fell within the  State of Karnataka, on 15th July, 2004.  A request was also  made that record of proceedings should be maintained by  the Tribunal including their observations on such inspection.   It appears that on 21st July, 2004 the State of  Karnataka filed an application seeking to place on record a  statement dated 5th December, 2003 in which it had sought  to set forth its stand on the issue of inspection of the basin.   By an order dated 27th July, 2004, the application was  disposed of by directing it to be taken on record. On 3rd August, 2004 an order was passed by two  members of the Tribunal inter alia saying that:- "the Inspection of sites/places in  Cauvery basin will clarify the  geographical aspects, the physiological  and other related matters.  The  Assessors will assist in that behalf.  The  learned counsel of the party States and  their technical hands are also  accompanying us on inspection."

With regard to the preparation of an inspection memo it  was said that  due regard would be given to the inspection  memo prepared by the Tribunal as was earlier constituted.   A second order was passed by the two Members of the  Tribunal on 3rd August, 2004 in which they made certain  observations relating to the contents of the Chairman’s order  dated 6th July, 2004.  The second order dated 3rd August,   2004 appears to be a justification of the decision of the two  members to hold an inspection. In response to the second  Order dated 3rd August, 2004, a third order was passed on  the same date by the Chairman of the Tribunal substantially  reiterating his stance on the delay in conclusion of the  proceedings.  The second and third orders passed were  entirely improper and contrary to all norms of judicial  etiquette.  However, nothing turns on the second and third  orders dated 3rd August, 2004 which were, in our view, an  unseemly and wholly unnecessary exercise.   On 13th August,  2004, the Advocate for the State of  Karnataka forwarded a tour programme in respect of the  inspection to be held by the members of the Tribunal of sites  within the State.  A similar tour programme was given to the  Tribunal by the State of Tamil Nadu. It was at this stage that a special leave petition was  filed on 19th August, 2004 by the appellant challenging the  orders dated 6th July, 2004, 23rd July, 2004 and 3rd August,  2004.  Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions was  granted and the two members of the Tribunal were asked to  defer their departure for inspection by 10 days by our order  dated 24th August, 2004.  When the matters were listed before this Court on 10th  September, 2004 for hearing, having considered the  submissions made on both sides, we were of the view that  the special leave petitions deserved to be rejected. The  interim order passed by this Court earlier accordingly was  vacated and the main matter was reserved for judgment. In our opinion, the appeals are liable to be dismissed  as the appellant does not have the locus standi to object to  the proceedings before the Tribunal. The appellant had not mentioned to this Court in its

3

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

special leave petitions that this Court had earlier dismissed a  writ petition (TC No.11/1993) filed by it in connection with the  functioning of the Tribunal when this Court held:- "It is not disputed that the Tribunal was  set up under the order of this Court and  since its inception it is engaged in  monitoring and adjudicating the dispute.   Under Article 131 of the Constitution of  India, the water disputes between two  States can only be brought by a State  and not by an individual or a society.   We are, therefore, of the view that the  petitioner has no locus standi to  challenge the validity of the Act or  setting up of the Tribunal and also the  reference of the disputes for  adjudication to the Tribunal."

Had we known of this order it is doubtful whether we  would have entertained the appellant’s petitions at all. If the  association could not have been a party to the proceedings  before the Tribunal it cannot be said to be a person  aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal in the proceedings.   It is not as if that the parties appearing before the Tribunal  were unable to ventilate their grievance against the orders  for any reason. The State of Karnataka whose cause was  said to be espoused by the appellant, did not itself choose to  challenge any of the orders of the Tribunal. On the other  hand, it is clear from the facts as narrated above that it had  accepted the orders of the Tribunal and had submitted a  detailed programme giving effect to the directions of the  Tribunal. We are not therefore prepared to allow the State of  Karnataka to step into the shoes of the appellant as was  prayed by it during the hearing.  Having regard to the absence of locus standi in the  appellant, it is unnecessary for us to decide the other issues  raised by the appellant.  The appeals are accordingly  dismissed with costs.