# • -! ORIGINAL SUIT NO. l OF 1997 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2000] 3 S.C.R. 301
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2000-04-25
- **Bench:** S.B. Majmudar, G.B. Pattanaik, V.N. Khare, Rp. Sethi, Umesh C. Banerjee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/original-suit-no-l-of-1997-state-of-karnataka-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-17343
- **Pages:** 172

## Headnote

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 evolvedScheme 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 complaint 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' c

## Text

_Characters 0–39,971 of 445,822. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39971 for what follows._

...
•
-!
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 evolvedScheme 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 complaint 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 its decision a decree in a suit
which had to be read consistent with the report-Held, Tribunal's decision was
H
not a decree and its report not a judgment in a civil suit; further held, prayer
y
-t
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. v. STATE OF A.P.
303
~
in Andhra Pradesh's plaint had to be understood in the light of its
A
assertion regarding raising of height of Almatti Dam; partial decree could not
make the entire report and further report binding on the panies-Law of
Pleadings.
Original Suit 1/97
B
The dispute between the three riparian States of Maharashtra,
....,,
Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh with respect to use, distribution and
'
control of the water of inter-State river Krishna stood resolved by the
.-'
decisions of the Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal ('Tribunal'), constituted
under s. 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 ('Act').
c
The Tribunal's first report submitted on December 24, 1973 as well
the further report dated May 27, 1976 evolved two Schemes. Scheme "A"
made the mass allocation in favour of three riparian States of the depend-
~
able flow at 75% which had been arrived at 2060 T.M.C., indicating that
in any water year Maharashtra shall not use more than 560 T.M.C.,
D
Karnataka not more than 700 T.M.C. and Andhra Pradesh not more than
800 T.M.C. It has also indicated that Andhra Pradesh which was the last
riparian owner, would be at liberty to use the remaining water that may
be flowing in the river Krishna but by such user the State shall not
-'¥
acquire any right whatsoever in respect of the excess quantity, which it
would use beyond the allotted quantity of 800 T.M.C.
E
For giving effect to the allocation on percentage basis in surplus as
· well as deficit years of flow the Tribunal evolved Scheme ''B" and indicated the same in its original report as well as in its further report. For
proper implementation of Scheme ''B", the constitution of the Krishna
Valley Authority (KVA) was absolutely necessary, Andhra Pradesh not
F
having agreed for the constitution of the KVA, the Tribunal did not make
Scheme ''B" as part of its Final Order and thought it fit to leave the matter
either ·to the good sense of the rival States or for the Parliament to make
a legislation to that effect under Entry 56 List I of the Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution.
G
·Y
According to Karnataka Scheme ''B" being a part of the decision of
the Tribunal was also required to be notified by the Central Government
under s. 6 of the Act, making it binding on the parties. Andhra Pradesh
did not agree. Karnataka then filed this suit in this Court under Article
131 against Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and the Union of India
H
r -
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000) 3 S.C.R.
I
A
seeking a decree that the surplus water in river Krishna i.e. in excess of
~
2060 TMC at 75% dependability be shared in accordance with
the determinations and directions of the Tribunal; a declaration that Andhra
Pradesh was not entitled to insist on its right to use the surplus water i.e.
.....
in excess of 2060 TMC at 75% dependability, so long as Scheme
B
''B" framed by the Tribunal was n_ot fully implemented and a mandatory
injunction to Union of India to notify Scheme ''B" framed by the Tribunal
and make provisions for establishment of a KVA for implementation of
'v
the Tribunal's directions. Karnataka also prayed for an order of
.
--..
injunction, restraining Andhra Pradesh from continuing to execute several
projects until Scheme ''B" framed by the Tribunal was effectively imple-
'.
c
mented.
Andhra Pradesh in its written st~tement took a preliminary objection that the adjudication sought for by Karnataka was itself a water
dispute and, therefore, the suit under Article 131 was barred in view of
•
D
the mandate under Article 262 of the Constitution read with s. 11 of the
Act. Further it was contended that only Scheme "A" could be held to be
the decision of the Tribunal. Whatever the Tribunal had observed in
relation to framing of Scheme ''B" was obiter and not a part of its
r
decision as such was un-enforceable. It was further asserted that Scheme
E
"A" having been acted upon by the parties for over two decades and under
~
the said Scheme review having been provided for after May 31, 2000, the
question of implementation of Scheme ''B" at this length of time was not
only inequitable but uncalled for.
Maharashtra also took the stand that the suit was not maintainable
F
inasmuch as the implementation of Scheme ''B" depended upon the consent of the States and the Court could not force the States to give consent
*
nor direct the Parliament to enact a legislation for the same. Union of
India in its written statement took the stand that the suit as framed was not
maintainable by virtue of s. 11 of the Act read with Article 262 of the
G
Constitution. So far as the user of water by the State of Andbra Pradesh !
was concerned, it contended that the award having set out in gross the
quantity of water which could be used in a given water year by Maharashtra,
'yKarnataka and Andhra Pradesh with the liberty to Andhra Pradesh to use
the surplus water, the said lib~rty did not confer or create any right in
Andhra Pradesh and such user would be subject to right of upper riparian
H
States of Maharashtra and Karnataka. It further asserted that the award
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. v. STATE OF A.P.
305
~
did not give a project-wise allocation but docs the gross allocation and each
A
of the States was bound to give effect to the award given by the Tribunal.
On "the basis of the pleadings this court framed 13 issue including the
following:
(a) Whether the suit was barred by Article 262(2) of the Constitution
B
read with s. 11 of the Act?
'
...,,
(b) Whether Scheme "B" was part of the "decision" of the Tribunal
under s. 6 of the Act and whether it was capable of or just and equitable to
implement Scheme ''B" at this stage?
c
Original Suit 2/97
/
4'
Andhra Pradesh filed this suit in this Court under Article 131 against
Karnataka, Maharashtra and the Union of India on the basis that though
D
in the Final Order of the Tribunal, there was a mass allocation of water in
favour of the three riparian States out of the 2060 TMC of water under
75 % of dependability, a closer scrutiny of the report in its entirety revealed
that the allocation in respect of different sub-basins had been made on the
-"'jbasis of projects undertaken in those sub-basins and consequently, no State
would be entitled to use the entire quantity of water allocated in their
E
favour in any particular sub-basin. In the circumstances the post award
constructions undertaken by Karnataka, including its intention to raise
the height to Almatti Dam to 524.256 meters, were a gross violation of the
decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, Andhra Pradesh inter alia sought a
declaration that the Trihunal's report and decision dated December 24,
F
......
1973 and further report and decision dated May 27, 1976 in their entirety
were binding on the three riparian states; a permanent injunction against
Karnataka restraining it from undertaking or continuing with any further
constitution with its projects, including Almatti Dam, in the post award
phase.
G
Karnataka in its written statement took the stand that the Tribunal
~
had not made any project-wise allocation and on the other hand, the
allocation was enbloc. As such the question of interpreting the decision of
the Tribunal to the effect that there was restriction in the user of water in
any particular basin was not correct. Karnataka had contemplated the
H
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000] 3 S.C.R.
A
height of the Dam at Almatti as 524.256 meters in the Project Report of
~
1970 itself. That Report had been filed before the Tribunal and had been
marked as document MYPK-3. Neither Andhra Pradesh nor any other
State had raised any obje<;tion to the said project Report and there was no
-
issue before the Tribunal on that score. In fact the height of Almatti Dam
B
was not a matter of adjudication before the Tribunal. Therefore there was
no question of any violation of the decision of the Tribunal. Further the
project at Almatti had been undertaken at huge cost exceeding Rs. 6000
crores and it was not in national interest to stop the project at this advance
Y·
stage. It was reiterated that the utilisation of water would be entirely
within the allocated quantity made by the Tribunal.
~
c
The stand of the Union of India was that Karnataka was entitled to
utilise the gross amount of water for any such projects and so long as it was
within 173 MC in the Upper Krishna Project, there was no violation of the
~
Tribunal's decision.
~
D
In its first written statement Maharashtra supported Karnataka and
contended that the relief sought for by Andhra Pradesh in the plaint would
tantamount to a complete re-writing of the decision of the Tribunal which
would be outside the scope of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution.
E
However in an additional written statement filed subsequently
Maharashtra took a new stand in relation to the alleged construction of
Almatti Dam with FRL 524.56 m. by Karnataka. It was now averred that
by raising the dam height at Almatti, there was likelihood of enormous
damage to private and public properties. Apprehending submergence of
F
lands \\ithin its territory, Maharashtra now supported Andhra Pradesh in
praying for an injunction against Karnataka from raising the height of the
+-
dam.
This Court framed 3~issues which included the following :
G
(a) Had Karnataka violated the Tribunal's decision by executing the
projects in the post-award phase?
-~
(b) Did Andhra Pradesh prove that allocation of waters by the
H
Tribunal were. specific for projects and not en bloc?
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. v. STATE OF A.P.
307
(c) Was Andhra Pradesh entitled to a declaration that all construeA
tions by Karnataka not in conformity with the Tribunal's decision were
illegal?
(d) Would the construction by Karnataka of the Almatti Dam up to
524.256 m enable it to use more water than its allocated share and should it
be permitted to proceed witb ·the construction without the consent of other
riparian states or the approval of the Union of India?
(e) Whether Karnataka could be permitted to raise the storage level
at Almatti Dam above RL 5090.16 m in view of the likely submergence of
B
territories in Maharashtra?
C
On September 30, 1997, the Supreme Court recorded the statement
of the three riparian states that they had no objection to prayer (a) in
Andhra Pradesh's suit that the Tribunal's two reports and decisions in
their entirety be declared to be binding on them. Accordingly, the Supreme
Court directed. that a partial decree could be passed to that extent. At the
D
final hearing Karnataka contended that since Scheme 'B' was a part of the
report, its suit seeking enforcement of Scheme 'B' could not be resisted by
Andhra Pradesh in view of partial decree. Andhra Pradesh contended that
the Tribunal's report was like a judgment in a civil suit and its decision like
a decree which had to be read consistent with the report.
E
Dismissing Original Suit No. 1/97 and disposing of Original Suit No.
2191, this Court
Held : Per Pattanaik, J. (For himself and other Judges in the Bench,
with separate concurring/supplementing judgments by Majmudar, Sethi
and Umesh C. Banerjee, JJ.):
1.1. Scheme ''B" framed by the Tribunal was not the decision of the
Tribunal and as such, was not required to be notified under s. 6 of the Act
and consequently could not be enforced at the behest of Karnataka.
[332-D-E]
F
G
1.2. The Tribunal never considered Scheme ''B" to form a part of its
decision for being implemented even though there could not be any doubt
about the efficacy of the Scheme in question. A water dispute having arisen
between the three riparian States in relation to sharing of water of river
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
0
H
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000] 3 S.C.R.
Krishna and the said dispute having been referred to the Tribunal for its
adjudication and the Tribunal having investigated the matters referred to
it had having submitted its report containing the facts found as well as its
decision, it was that decision which conclusively decided the disputes referred and was capable of being implemented which could be said to be the
deeision of the Tribunal under s. 5(2). (331-F -HJ
•
Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1993) Supp 1 SCC 96, followed.
1.3. Scheme ''B" provided for a fuller and better utilization of the
water resources in river Krishna and in future if the question of allocation
of river Krishna was gone into by any authority then the said authority
would certainly look to Scheme ''B" which had been evolved on the date
available then and acceptability of the same would be duly considered.
[333-B-C]
2.1. The assertions made in the plaint and the relief sought for
showed it to he a claim on the basis of an adjudicated dispute, the
enforcement whereof was sought for by filing a suit under Article 131 of
the Constitution. It was not a dispute within the meaning of s. 2(c) of the
Act. Such a suit was therefore not barred under Article 262 of the Constitution read withs. 11 of the Act. (339-F-G]
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1978] 1 SCR 1 and State of
Karnataka v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR 1, referred to.
Constitutional Law of India by H.M. Seervai, referred to.
2.2 Such a suit was also not premature on the ground that a review
had been provided for after May 31, 2000. The review indicated in the
Tribunal's order was in relation to the allocation made under Scheme 'A'
and had nothing to do with Scheme 'B' which was sought to be implemented through the suit. [348-A-B]
3. It was for the Central Government to exercise the discretion
while granting any scheme or project of the lowest riparian state so that
the latter was not allowed to proceed with large-scale water projects for ·
utilisation of the surplus water in excess of the allocated quantity over
which it had no right. The discretion had to be so exercised to allay any
apprehension in the minds of the upper States that for all times to come,
their right of sharing the surplus water would in any manner be
:~
"
;)
. I
~
y
.. -·
-~
-
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. v. STATE OF A.P.
309
endangered. (345-A-C]
4.1. The relief of permanent mandatory injunction so far as construction of the dam at Almatti was concerned as well as the reliefs sought
for in paragraph (b) to (k) of Andhra Pradesh's plaint could not be
granted. (403-D]
4.2. Under the decision of the Tribunal there was mass allocation and
not project-wise excepting those specific projects mentioned in clauses IX
and X of the decision. The plaintiff Andhra Pradesh had utterly failed to
establish that there was any specific allocation by the Tribunal in respect of
Upper Krishna Project or the Almatti Reservoir. (381-D; 396-G-H]
4.3. There was no restriction for quantity of user of water in Upper
Krishna Project by Karnataka and so long as the total user did not exceed
mass allocation, it could not be said that the decision of the Tribunal was
being violated infringing the rights of Andhra Pradesh which could be
prohibited by issuing any mandatory injunction. The very fact that restrictions had been put by the Tribunal in several sub-basins and no
restriction had been put so far as sub-basin K-2 wherein Upper Krishna
Project of Karnataka was being carried on clinched the point. [380-D-EJ
4.4. There was nothing to show that Karnataka had carried out any
project in contravention of the provisions of any particular law made by
Parliament or in contravention of any direction issued by the Government
of India. (399-BJ
4.5. There existed no materials on the basis of which it was possible
for the Court to come to a conclusion that on account of the construction
of Almatti Dam within Karnataka the plaintiff had been adversely affected
or was likely to be adversely affected. (399-F-G]
5.1. There was no bar for raising the height of the Dam at Almatti up
to 519.6 meters subject to getting clearance from the Appropriate AuthorA
B
c
D
E
F
ity of the Central Government and any other Statutory Authority, reG
quired under law. (403-E]
5.2. Though Karnataka could have the dam at Almatti, but the
height of the said dam could not be more than 519.6 m, particularly when
Karnataka had not been able to indicate as to what the necessity of having
a height of Dam at 542.256 meters when Scheme'P.' was not going to be
H
( \
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2000] 3 S.C.R.
A
operated upon immediately. The question of further raising its height to
"'
524.256 meters should be gone into by the Tribunal. [385-F; 386-H]
k
5.3. The Central Government was not duty bound to take the consent of other States while sanctioning any project of any of the riparian
B
States. The project of each State had to be approved by the Central
Government as well as by other statutory authorities and the Planning
Commission, but for which a State could not proceed with the construetion of such project. [382-B-C; 387-C]
~-
5.4. The question of getting concurrence of other riparian States raised
c
by Andhra Pradesh was wholly misconceived. Neither there existed by law
......_
which compelled any State to get the concurrence of other riparian States
whenever it used water in respect of inter-State river nor did the decision of
the Tribunal impose any condition in this regard. [397-E]
~
D
6.1. The question of submergence of land pursuant to the user of
'f .--
water in respect of an Inter-State river allocated in favour of a particular
State was inextricably connected with the allocation of water itself and
the present grievance of Maharashtra would be a complaint on account of
an executive action of the State of Kamataka within the meaning of
S~ction 3(A) and also would be a water dispute within the ambit of s. 2(c)
E
and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain and
r"'-
examine and answer the same in a suit filed under Article 131 as a part of
implementation of an adjudication of a tribunal. [393-A-B; G]
6.2. However wide the power of the Court under Article 142 of the
F
Constitution might be, it would not be proper to entertain the question of
submergence, raised by Maharashtra in its additional written statement
and decide the question of injunction, in relation to the height of Almatti
}--
Dam on that basis. [394-A-B]
Delhi Judicial Services Assn. v. State of Gujarat, [1991] 4SCC 406 and
G
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, [1978] 1 SCR 1, referred to.
7.1. The decision of the Tribunal was not a decree which has to be
understood in the light of the judgment in the suit. The Tribunal's report
y
was also not a judgment and was not required to be notified so as to make
it binding on the parties. It was only the decision of the Tribunal which was
H
required to be published in the Official Gazette and on such publication
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. v. STATE OF A.P.
311
that decision became final and was binding on the parties. [370-E-G]
A
Kalikrishna Tagore v. The Secretary of State, LR 15 Indian Appeals
186; Law Repo11 25 Indian Appeals at 107-08 and 1913 Vol. 25 Mad. LI 24,
referred to.
7.2. The order of this Court dated September 30, 1997 did not mean
B
that a decree had to be passed making the entire report as well as the
further report of the Tribunal binding on the parties. When a prayer was
, -(
made in a plaint, the said prayer has to be understood in the light of the
assertion. [371-B; 370-G]
Per S.B. Majmudar, J. (Supplementing) :
1. No project-wise allocation of available water was decided upon by
the Tribunal while framing Scheme "A" so far as the Upper Krishna
Project (UKP) was concerned. [410-H]
c
2. What height the Almatti dam should be constructed was not on
D
the anvil of scrutiny of the Tribunal nor was any decision rendered by the
Tribunal in that connection which could be made subject matter of the
challenge in the present suit of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that any
such express direction of the Tribunal in this connection was violated by
Karnataka. [410-H; 411-A-B]
E
3. If the height of Almatti Dam was fixed at FRL 519.6 m it would
meet the requirements not only of Andhra Pradesh but also would not fall
foul of the opinion of the Expert Committee as well as the clearance given
by the Central Water Commission to Stage II of the UKP. Any increase of
the height beyond FRL 519 m. depended upon further allotment of water
F
to Karnataka by any subsequent decision of the Tribunal, as and when
constituted, as that would depend upon the implementation of the proposed Scheme "B" which had not yet been elevated to the status of a
binding decision of any Water Disputes Tribunal. [419-E; 420-CJ
4. Constitution of Almatti Dam with an FRL 524.256 together with
all other projects executed and in progress and contemplated by Karnataka
could not be granted nor could Karnataka be permitted to construct up to
that height without the consent of all other riparian States as well as
without the approval of the Central Government. However, this would be
subject to the rider that there could not be any objection to permitting
G
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000) 3 S.C.R.
A
Karnataka to construct Almatti Dam up to a height of 519 m. This was
further subject to clearance by all other competent authorities functioning
under different statutes. Requisite clearance would be required by
Karnataka for raising the height of the dam even up to 519 m. [427-D-E]
B
5. On a conjoint reading of s. 2(c)(i) and 3(a) of the Act, the grievance voiced by Maharashtra against Karnataka would fall within the forecomers of the Act enacted by the Legislature under Article 262 and cannot
be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court under Article 131. [425-D-E]
Per Banerjee, J. (concurring)
C
1. Scheme B was not a decision of the Tribunal requiring publication
or notification by the Central Government in terms of the provisions of the
Act. The Krishna Valley Authority being the 'heart of the Scheme' not
yet having been created by Central Government, the question of
implementation of Scheme B, as a decision of the Tribunal did not and
"1 •
D
could not arise. [451-E; 453-B]
State of Wisconsin v. State of Illinois, 74 L. ed. 799, referred to.
2. The observations of the Tribunal on the issue of Scheme B were
wholly without jurisdiction. A Tribunal could not exhypothesia pronounce
E
a decision which required for its implementation, a law to be enacted by
1'"-
Parliament or by consent of the' parties. The Union Government would not
have any obligation to agree to carry out any such directive. [452-B-C; G]
3. The suit by Karnataka was maintainable. It pertained to implementation, but did not require any further adjudication of water dispute
F
between States within the meaning of s. 2(c) of the Act. [445-H; 446-D]
. G
In Re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal AIR (1992) SC 522; N.P.
Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constitutency, [1952] SCR 218
and Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner; New Delh4
[1978] 2 SCR 272, referred to •
4. The situation was not conducive for the grant of injunction as
prayed for by Andhra Pradesh neither was such injunction warranted at
this juncture. [465-B]
H
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v.HindustanLever Ltd., [1999] 7SCC1
r
- ~-
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. v. STATE OF A.P.
313
and State of Kamataka v. Union of India, [1978) 2 SCR 1, referred to.
A
By reason of the report to the experts, the Almatti Dam and its upper
limit could be placed at FRL 519 subject however, to clearance from
appropriate authority or authorities as required under the l~w. Question
of raising the ultimate height at Almatti Dam could be gone' into by the
B
Tribunal upon assessment of the situation as placed by the riparian States
and upon assessment of the apprehension of submergence and the appre< __
hension of loss of Kharif crop as well. [ 468-B-C]
·
'
.........
5. The Tribunal is directed to look into the matter if and when
occasion arose as regards the allocation of water in River Krishna Basin,
C
totally uninfluenced by the observations made by the earlier Tribunal's
view by reason of long lapse of time and the availability of modern technology. [468-D]
Per Sethi, J. (concurring)
Right to water is a fundamental right. The disputes relating to water
management are to be considered not from rigid technical or legal angle
but from humanitarian point of view. [470-E-G]
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Original Suit No. 1.
Under Article 131 of the Constitution of India.
Ashok H. Desai, Soli J. Sorabjee, Attonemey Generals, Harish N. Salve,
Solicitor Generals, M.S. Usgaonkar, R.N. Trivedi, K.N. Rawal, Additional
Solicitor General, F.S. Nariman, S.S. Javali, A.K. Ganguli, K. Parasaran, T.R.
Andhyarujina, M.S. Nargolkar, G. Raghurarn, N.N. Goswami, A.N. Jayararn,
(N.V. Rarnana), Addi. Advocate General for State of A.P., (A.N. Jayararn)
Advocate General for State of Karnataka, S.P. Singh, Subhash Sharma, Mohan
")'- Katarki, Ms. Poonarn Kumar, Sanjay R. Hegde, G. Umapathi, G. Prabhakar,
Subrat Birla, D.M. Nargolkar, S. Wasim, A. Quadri, S.K. Dwivedi, A.K.
Sharma, B. Krishna Prasad, Ms. Sushrna Suri, K.K. Tyagi, Ms. Shalini Bhalla,
Vmeet Kumar, K.R. Nagaraja, C. V. Sobba Rao, Shambhu Pd. Singh, S.
Vijayashankar, A. Ram Narayan, Rajeev Shanna, (Nikhil Nayyar) for the State
of A.P., Dhruv Mehta, R.N. Ve1ma, Dr. S.C. Jain and Parag Tripathi for the
appearing parties.
D
E
F
G
H
'.
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000) 3 S.C.R.
A
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
ii<
PATTANAIK, J. River Krishna originates in the State of Maharashtra
and flows down through the State of Kamataka and State of Andhra Pradesh
and meets the Bay of Bengal in Andhra Pradesh. It has got several tributaries
B
and in the pre-independence era, there was not much dispute between the then
· States for sharing water of any inter-State river. Even then, when large-scale
projects were taken up in one State, the other riparian States were apprehensive of getting their share of water from the river and it is in this context, for
'¥ ..
sharing the water of Tungabhadra, another river in Krishna Basin, there was
an agreement in 1944, settling the dispute concerning the share of the water
1
c
of the said river Tungabhadra. After the Constitution of India came into force,
the Krishna basin fell within the territories of the States of Bombay, Mysore,
Hyderabad and Madras. The States went on planning for erection of big
projects for proper utilization of the waters of Krishna basin and in July, 1951,
a memorandum of agreement had been drawn up for apportionment of the
i1·
D
available supply of Krishna river system among the four riparian States
namely, States of Bombay, Hyderabad, Madras and Mysore. It appears that the
said memorandum of agreement had been drawn up to ·remain valid for a
period of 25 years and even at that point of time, the State of Mysore refused
to ratify the agreement. After implementation of the recommendations of the
States Reorganisation Act, in the year 1956, the Krishna basin came to be
..,.__
E
controlled by the States of Bombay, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh, which
~
became the riparian States. Each of these States became active for exercising
their right share over the water of Krishna valley and the Central Water and
Power Commission had drawn up a scheme for re-allocation of the Krishna
water. That however was not acceptable to the States and no agreement
F
between the States could be reached. Whenever any of the riparian State would
come up with major projects, the other States would object to the same. By
undertaking the construction of large projects py different States, pressure
became more on the available supplies and disputes between the riparian
States became more and more bitter. Several objections were raised in relation
G
to Nagarjunasagar and Srisailam projects in Andhra Pradesh as well as Koyna
project in Maharashtra. The Central Government, in 1963 had taken a decision
to clear up the pending new projects on the basis that the withdrawal of water
by the States of Maharashtra, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh should not exceed
~-
400, 600 and 800 T.M.C. respectively. This decision of the Central Government was not acceptable to the State of Maharashtra and in June, 1963, the
H
Maharashtra Government had requested the Govt. of India for making a·
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. v. STATE OF A.P. [PATTANAIK, J.
315
reference of the disputes to a Tribunal. Between the period of 1963 to 1969,
the Central Government tried their best to resolve the disputes between the
riparian States by negotiations and holding several inter-State Conferences.
But it received more number of applications for reference of the dispute in the
years 1968 and 1969. Then again, on account of re-organisation of the States
and re-distribution of the Tungabhadra Valley itself between the States of
Mysore and Andhra Pradesh, disputes also arose concerning the validity of the
earlier Tungabhadra agreement and the control and distribution of Tungabhadra
water. The State of Kamataka is the successor State of State of Mysore. Finally
on lQth of April, 1969, Government of India constituted the Krishna Water
Disputes Tribunal and called upon the Tribunal for adjudication of the water
disputes regarding the inter-State river Krishna and the river valley thereof.
The Tribunal was constituted under Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes
Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which Act has been enacted
A
B
c
by the Parliament in exercise of powers conferred under Article 262 of the
Constitution of India. The said Tribunal on consideration of the materials
placed before it, investigated into the matters referred to it and forwarded a
D
repo1t to the Central Government, setting out the facts found by it and giving
its decisions of the matters referred to it, on 24th of December, 1973, under
Section 5(2) of the Act. On receipt of the said report and the decision, the
Government of India as well as the three riparian States namely States of
Maharashtra, Kamataka and Andhra Pradesh made references to the tribunal
for further consideration under Section 5(3) of the Act and the tribunal on
E
consideration of those references submitted its further report giving such
explanations or guidance, as the tribunal deemed fit on the matters referred to
it under Section 5(3) on 27th of May, 1976. It may be stated that the 01iginal
report dated 24m of December, 1973 contained the Final Order of the tribunal
and the further report dated 27th of May, 1976 also contained the modified
F
Final Order, which modification was necessary because of explanations given
to references made by different States under Section 5(3) of the Act. The
Central Government construed the aforesaid Final Order to be the decision of
the tribunal and accordingly, published the same in the Extraordinary Gazette
dated 31 81 of May, 1976 and on such publication, the said Final Order has
statutorily become final and binding on the parties to the dispute.
In the Repo1t of the tribunal as well as in the further Report, submitted
by the tribunal, two Schemes have been evolved - Scheme "A" and Schem~
"B". On the basis of agreement between all the States, the availability of water
G
in Krishna basin was found out at 2060 T.M.C. on 75% dependability. The
H
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000] 3 S.C.R.
A
tribunal under Scheme "A" made the mass allocation in favour of three
riparian States of the dependable flow at 75% which had been an"ived at 2060
T.M.C., indicating that the State of Maharashtra shall not use in any water year
more than 560 T.M.C., the State of Kamataka shall not use in any water year
more than 700 T.M.C. and the State of Andhra Pradesh shall not use more than
800 T.M.C in any water year. It had also indicated that the State of Andhra
Pradesh which is the last riparian owner, will be at liberty to use the remaining
water that may be flowing in the river Krishna but by such user the State shall
not acquire any tight whatsoever in respect of the excess quantity, which it
uses beyond the allotted quantity of 800 T.M.C. It is to be stated that in course
of the proceedings before the tribunal, several schemes had been submitted by
C
the States for the examination of the tribunal and the tribunal considered all
such schemes and had finally evolved the Scheme "A". On 4th of May, 1973,
all the three States subrni tted their views under the signature of their respective
counsel on the method of allocation to be adopted by the tribunal which was
marked before the tribunal as Exhibit MRK- 340 and under that document the
D
parties had called upon the tribunal not only to have mass allocation of
utilisable dependable flow at 75% but also for allocation on percentage basis
in surplus as well as deficit years of flow and restrictions with regard to the
use and the nature of such restrictions was to be decided by the tribunal. It
also called upon the tribunal to have a joint control body to monitor the said
E
F
G
H
allocation on percentage basis in surplus as well as deficit years of flow. For
giving effect to the allocation on percentage basis in surplus as well as deficit
years of flow, the tt"ibunal evolved the Scheme "B" and indicated the same in
its original report as well as in its fmther report. But for proper implementation.
of Scheme "B", the constitution of the Krishna Valley Authot"ity was absolutely necessary and the State of Andhra Pradesh not having agreed for
constitution of the controlling authority, the tribunal did not make Scheme "B"
as part of its Final Order though the said Scheme "B" was a part of its original
report as well as the further report and thought it fit to leave the matter either
to the good sense of the rival States or for the Parliament to make a legislation
to that effect under Entry 56 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution. The State of Karnataka however being of the opinion that
Scheme "B" having formed a part of the decision of the tribunal was also
required to be notified by the Central Government under Section 6 of the Act,
making it binding on the parties, and the same not having been done, filed the
present suit on 1" of March, 1997, impleading the State of Andhra Pradesh,
the State of Maharashtra and the Union of India as patty defendants, invoking
the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution, seeking
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. v. STATE OF A.P. [PATTANAIK, J.]
317
relief for a decree that the surplus water in river Krishna i.e., in excess of 2060
TMC at 75% dependability be shared in accordance with the determinations
and directions of the tribunal, contained in its report and further report and ;
a declaration that defendant No. 1 State of Alldhra Pradesh is not entitled to
insist on its right to use the surplus water i.e., in excess of 2060 TMC at 75%
dependability, so long as Scheme "B" framed by the tribunal is not fully
implemented and a mandatory injunction to the defendant No. 3 Union of
India to notify Scheme "B" framed by the tribunal and make provisions for
establishment of a Krishna Valley Authority for implemen~tion of the
directions of the tribunal in its Report and Further Report. The State of
Kamataka has also prayed for an order of injunction, restraining defendant No.
1 from continuing to execute several other projects like Telgu Ganga,
Srisailam Right Bank Canal, Srisailam Left Bank Canal, Bheema Lift hrigation and Pulichintala Projects, until Scheme "B" framed by the tribunal is
effectively implemented.