9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, Kawaljit Kochar, Rajeev Sharma, R.S. Suri, Anis Suhrawardy, Rachana Srivastava, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Debasis Mohanty, Naresh K. Sharma, Hemantika Wahi, S.C. Birla, Vijay Panjwani, Mahabir Singh, Alka Agarwal, T. Mahipal, Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Reena Singh, Girish Chandra, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Sheil Sethi, R.K. Maheshwari, Naresh Bakshi, M.L. Lahoty, M.K.D. Namboodiri, Prashant Chaudhary, Amit Singh, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Sanjay Hegde, Shreekant N. Terdal, S.R. Sharma, V.A. Bobde, M.C. Mehta and Ajay Pal, Advs., Kumar Rajesh Singh, Adv., for B.B. Singh, Adv. Dhruv Mehta, Adv. for S. K. Mehta, Adv., JUDGMENT G.B. Pattanaik, J. 1. The State of Haryana has filed the present suit, under Article 131 of the Constitution of India, impleading the State of Punjab as defendant No. 1 and the Union of India as defendant No. 2, for the following reliefs: "(a) pass a decree declaring that the order dated March 24, 1976, the Agreement of December 31, 1981 and the Settlement of July 24, 1985 are final and binding inter alia on the State of Punjab casting an obligation on Defendant No. 1 to immediately restart and complete the portion of the Sutlej Yamuna Lin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eting had been convened by the Govt. of India on 29th January, 1955, a workable agreement was arrived at for development and utilization of the waters of Rivers Ravi and Beas and under the said agreement, the share of undivided Punjab was 5.90 M.A.F. When there was a bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Punjab into two separate States of Punjab and Haryana w.e.f. November 01, 1966 under Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966, special provisions had been made with regard to the rights and liabilities of the successor States in relation to the water from Bhakra Nanagal Project and Beas Project. Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, deals with such rights and liabilities of the successor States. Disputes arose between the two States of Punjab and Haryana as to their respective share of water which had earlier been allocated to the erstwhile State of Punjab and in the meeting called by the Government of India, a decision was taken on ad hoc basis that 35% of water would go to Haryana and 65% for Punjab, pending finalisation of the dispute. The State of haryana approached the Government of India in October, 1969, invoking its jurisdiction under Section 78 of the Punjab Reorgani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b filed a suit in this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the Orders of Government of India dated 24th of March, 1976 and also challenged the vires of Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, which was registered as Suit No. 2 of 1979. During the pendency of the aforesaid two suits, an agreement was entered into between the States of Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan in the presence of the Prime Minister of India on 31st of December, 1981. Under the said agreement, the net surplus of Ravi Beas waters were estimated at 17.17 MAF and that stood allotted as 4.22 MAF to Punjab, 3.50 MAF for Haryana, 8.60 MAF for Rajasthan, 0.20 MAF for Delhi Water Supply and 0.65 MAF for Jammu and Kashmir. Clause (IV) of the said agreement provided: "Clause (IV) The Sutlej-Yamuna Canal Project shall be implemented in a time bound manner so far as the canal and appurtenant works in the Punjab territory are concerned within a maximum period of two years from the date signing of the Agreement so that haryana is enabled to draw its allocated share of waters. The canal capacity for the purpose of design of the canal shall be mutually agreed upon between Punjab an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Canal within the haryana territory. Non-completion of the SYL Canal has debarred over three lac hectares of irrigation potential created in the State of Haryana and the said State is losing agricultural production over eight lac tonnes per annum. According to the plaintiff, if the canal would have been completed in 1983, as envisaged, then the State of Haryana would have been in a position to produce an additional 100 lac tonnes of food-grains, the value of which would work out to ₹ 5000 Crores. When the State of Punjab did not carry out the construction of the SYL Canal, the State of Haryana sought for intervention of the Union of India and the Prime Minister of India convened a meeting on 20th of February, 1991. In the said meeting, the Prime Minister directed that arrangements should be made for the Border Roads Organisation to take-over the work in the minimum time possible and the work should be dealt with on an emergency footing. At that point of time, there was no political government in the State of Punjab and it was under the Presidents Rule. In July 1995, the State of Punjab circulated a white paper, clearly expressing its intention not to proceed with the wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Defendant No. 1 does not dispute the observations of the tribunal in its Report dated 30th of January, 1987, relating to the aforesaid paragraph 9.3, but contends that such observations were in fact beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal. According to the Defendant No. 1, plaintiff's claim to have share from Beas Project would not exceed 0.9 MAF and that quantity of water would always be made available through the main Canal, which is in existence and functioning. The said Defendant No. 1 also averred that the State of Haryana is getting an additional water supply through River Yamuna under the Agreement dated 12th of May, 1994, between the States of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi and Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, there is no need for the SYL Canal in any event. It has been further averred that Haryana is already getting 1.62 MAF of water in Ravi-Beas waters through the existing canal system of Bhakra Main Line/Narwana Branch and the present system is fully capable of conveying the said quantity of water. Consequently, there is no need for SYL Canal. The Defendant No. 1 further contends that in Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, there has been no refere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment of Punjab for early completion of Punjab portion of the canal. It has been further averred that the Union of India had constituted the Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal, which gave its interim report on 30th of January, 1987 and the final report of the tribunal is awaited. It has also been reiterated in the written statement that the Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal in its interim report had observed that this canal is the lifeline for the farmers of Haryana and unless it is expeditiously completed, Haryana will not be in a position to utilize the full quantum of water allocated to it. The said defendant has also averred that the concept of a carrier for Haryana's share in surplus Ravi-Beas waters was envisaged in inter-State Agreement of 1981. Further, the Central Government determined the rights and liabilities of the successor States in accordance with Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and allocated 3.5 MAF of surplus Ravi-Beas water to Haryana as per Government of India Notification dated 24.3.1976. The said defendant has stated in the written statement that the Union of India made its best efforts to settle the issue. On the question of amount of money, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es cannot be disposed of without examining the relevant records and without going into the rival contentions in details. ISSUE NO. 2: 8. This issue on the question of maintainability of the suit arises because of the stand taken by the State of Punjab in the written statement. According to the defendant No. 1, Article 262 of the Constitution is specifically designed, authorising the Parliament to provide for adjudication of any water dispute in relation to any inter-State river by making a law in that regard and Sub-article (2) of Article 262 authorises the Parliament to make law, ousting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other Court in respect of any dispute or complaint coming within Article 262(1). The Parliament having enacted the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and the said Act having ousted the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and any other Court from exercising jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute, which may be referred to a tribunal under the Act as provided under Section 11 of the said Act, the present dispute is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 131 and consequently, the suit must fail. 9. The stand of the State of Ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the use, distribution or control such waters or the implementation of such agreement. Essentially, therefore, the dispute would be a water dispute within the meaning of Section 2(c) when the dispute is in relation to the use, distribution or control of the waters of any inter-State river or interpretation of the terms of an agreement, relating to the use distribution or control of such water or implementation of such agreement. The averments in the plaint and the relief sought for by the State of Haryana is not in the water from Ravi-Beas Project. The entire dispute centers round the question of the obligation on the part of the State of Punjab to dig the portion of SYL Canal within its territory which canal became necessary for carrying water from the project to the extent the said water has already been allocated in favour of the State of Haryana under the provision of the Punjab Reorganisation Act and the subsequent agreement between the parties. Dr. Dhawan, appearing for the State of Punjab, forcefully argued that the construction of SYL Canal is inextricably linked to allocation of distribution of water from Ravi-Beas Project and that being the position, it would be difficult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontained a stipulation that in the event, water in the Beas at Mandi is more or less in a particular year, the share of the State of Haryana would be increased or decreased pro-rata. It is nobody's case that water in the river Beas has decreased in the meanwhile. The existing canal system not being capable of utilizing 3.5 MAF of water allocated to the State of Haryana, the idea of having SYL Canal was mooted and ultimately agreed to. Thus the construction of SYL Canal is essentially one for the purpose of utilizing the water that has already been allotted to the share of Haryana and consequently, cannot be construed to be in any way inter-linked with the distribution or control of water of, or in any inter-State river or river valley. In the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. AIR2001SC1560 his Court considered the provisions of Article 262(2) of the Constitution and Section 11 and Section 2(c) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act and its impact on a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution. It was held that the question of maintainability has to be decided upon the averments made by the plaintiff a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be mutually agreed upon between Punjab and Haryana within 15 days, failing which it shall be 6500 cusecs, as recommended by former Chairman, Central Water Commission." 12. On the basis of the aforesaid agreement between the parties, the two suits that had been filed before this Court were withdrawn and under the agreement, the notification dated 24th of March, 1976 stood modified to the extent varied under the agreement. It would thus be apparent that so far as the State of Haryana is concerned, the earlier allocation of 3.5 MAF of the water remained the same and it became necessary to construct another canal, almost parallel to the main canal, as the existing canal system was not capable of utilizing the allocated share of water to the extent of 3.5 MAF in favour of the State of Haryana. The order of this Court dated 12th of February 1982 in these two suits filed, so far as relevant, is quoted herein-below: ".....The prayer of the plaintiffs for withdrawal of suits is allowed and the suits are dismissed as withdrawn in view of the agreement dated 31st December, 1981 between the parties to the suits. There will be no order as to costs." 13. It is a well known fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Parliament and an amendment was inserted to the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 by Act 20 of 1986, under which Section 14 was added to the said Act. Section 14 with its explanation may be extracted herein-below in extenso: "Section 14: Constitution of Ravi and Beas Water Tribunal:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Tribunal under this Act, to be known as the Ravi and Beas Water Tribunal for the verification and adjudication of the matters referred to in paragraph 9.1 and 9.2 respectively 1of the Punjab Settlement. (2) When a Tribunal has been constituted under Sub-section (1), the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 4, Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 5 and Sections 5A to 13 (both inclusive) of this Act relating to the constitution, jurisdiction, powers, authority and bar of jurisdiction shall, so far as may be, but subject to Sub-section (3) hereof, apply to the constitution, jurisdiction, powers, authority and bar of jurisdiction in relation to the Tribunal constituted under Sub-section (1). (3) When a Tribunal h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject matter of dispute in the present suit cannot be held to be a "water dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act and as such, such a suit is not barred under Article 262 of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act. The aforesaid issue must be answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff State. ISSUE NO. 3: 16. Though this issue had been framed because of the stand taken by the defendant No. 1 in the written statement, but in course of hearing of the suit, Dr. Dhawan, appearing for the State of Punjab did not seriously press the same. It is also apparent from the written submissions filed on behalf of the said defendant No. 1, wherein as many as seven submissions have been enumerated in paragraph 1.5 of Part-A and the question of limitation had not been raised therein. 17. Mr. Bobde, the learned counsel, appearing for the plaintiff, however urged that though Article 112 of the Limitation Act relating to suits by or on behalf of the Central Government or any State Government is 30 years but the suits filed before the Supreme Court are specifically excluded from the purview of the same. According to Mr. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tates, at the intervention of the Prime Minister of India, and the SYL canal having been substantially completed for which more than ₹ 600 crores of tax-payers' money has been spent and in view of offer made by the learned ASG, we observe that notwithstanding hearing of the suit and keeping it reserved for judgment, the Union Government through the Ministry of Water Resources and with the blessings of the Prime Minister may continue the negotiations with the Chief Ministers of the two States, namely, Punjab and Haryana and we hope that if the Prima Minister intervenes with right earnest, then the dispute with regard to the construction of canal could be amicably settled and the Court will not be required to issue any order either way. The so-called settlement, if any, may be made within four weeks from today and if any settlement is arrived at then the same may be intimated to the Court. A copy of our order may be handed over to the learned ASG." 20. Having waited for the period of four weeks, when no intimation was received from the Union of India, we have proceeded to the judgment painfully, as in our view, it was indeed for the Central Government to see that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative power. The second Report of 5th July, 1947 of the Union of Constitution Committee having taken note of the facts then prevalent, unequivocally recorded that weak center would be injurious to the interests of the country. The said Report states: "We have accordingly come to the conclusion -- a conclusion which was also reached by the Union Constitution Committee -- that the soundest framework for our Constitution is a federation with a strong center." 21. It is in this context, Mr. Bobde, appearing for the plaintiff-State of Haryana urged that if a State does not abide by the discipline of the Constitution and goes to the extent of flouting its basic structure, it is the duty of the union of India to set things right and where the Union fails in its duty, the Supreme Court must intervene to correct the situation. According to the learned counsel, if balance of our federalism is upset by a recalcitrant State which proceeds to act as if it has no obligations to other States or to the nation as a whole and the Union remains a mute spectator either for the lack of political will or any reason whatever, then the Supreme Court will have to step in and preserve the basic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the farmers of Punjab boiled with resentment and physically interfered with the digging of canal. Such popular resentment still prevailed in the State of Punjab which culminated in the unfortunate event leading to serious Law and Order problem in the State of Punjab. The simmering discontentment which prevailed amongst the people of Punjab, got further aggravated on account of the so-called settlement signed by the then Prime Minister of India and Late Sardar Harchand Singh Longowal on 24.7.1985 and even the forcible digging of canal was ultimately stopped. This being the position, it would not be in the interest of any concern or in the interest of the nation to issue any direction for digging of the canal. According to the learned counsel, India no-doubt has a strong centralized centripetal system, which can bring recalcitrant States into line by a combined use of Article 355 and 365, but the Indian Federal system is also based upon certain admitted features like territorial vulnerability; empowerment to the union; State autonomy; A complex set of institutions and process to resolve disputes and enable governance; and the judiciary's in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment to play its role effectively. As we had already started hearing of the suit and had by then heard for a considerable period, when we found it not possible to adjourn the matter, we heard learned Additional Solicitor General and then at the conclusion of the hearing, passed the order, which we have already quoted earlier. But nothing appears to have happened and to us, it appears that in the controversy between the two states, the Union Government is feeling embarrassed to take any positive decision, which in our view is not in the interest of the nation. The founding fathers of the Constitution, advocated for a strong Central Government, so that there would not be any disintegration of the State and the Central power would be able to keep the State within its limits and will be able to force the States, in the matte of good governance of the States, which would benefit the inhabitants of the States, the inhabitants of the neighbouring States and the country as a whole. 24. Within India, the Indus basin lies in Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. Most of the basin in Pakistan lies in North-West Frontier Province, namely Punjab and Sind. Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flows continues and such friction between two States or two or more States has been continuing on account of lack of political will at the central level to deal with the problem with determination. The lack of interstate cooperation is the main factor leading to such dispute for sharing the water of a river. Even as between two States Punjab and Haryana, which at one point of time constituted only a single State, the dispute for additional allocation of water from this Ravi Beas basin is still pending un-resolved before a Tribunal, which had been constituted way back in the year 1986 in pursuance to the so-called 'Longowal Agreement'. We are not concerned in the present suit with regard to the Award that has been passed by the said Tribunal on 30th January, 1987; but we are certainly concerned with the continuance of such a Tribunal presided over by a retired Judge of this Court, who is sitting idle as the other members of the Tribunal had not been appointed or for some other reason, and continuance of such a Tribunal has become a source of drainage from the public exchequer without getting any return. It transpires, after the Tribunal passed the Award on 30th January, 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Sutlej Link and this project had started much before reorganisation and division of the undivided Punjab. Since no river was flowing within the State of Haryana and the State had no other water resources, even before the creation of the Haryana Development Committee had been set up, which Committee had submitted its report recommending the surplus Ravi Beas water for Haryana region, as is apparent from Exhibit-P/21. The undivided State of Punjab was bifurcated into two States of Punjab and Haryana with effect from 1.11.1966, under the Parliamentary Act, called 'The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Under the Parliamentary Legislation a provision had been engrafted providing that rights and liabilities of the existing State of Punjab in relation to Bhakra Nangal Project and Beas Project, shall on the appointed day, be the rights and liabilities of successor State in such proportion, as may be fixed and subject to such adjustment, as may be made by an agreement entered into by the said States, after consultation with the Central Government, or if no such agreement is entered into within two years of the appointed day, as the Central Government may be order determine having rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow have a very small effect on the availability of water of completion of the Beas Project;" 26. Even prior to the aforesaid Notification issued by the Government of India the concept of having SYL Canal had already emerged, which is apparent from Exhibit P-17, a communication from the Government of Haryana to the Central Government dated October 21, 1969. The relevant paragraphs from the aforesaid communication, Exhibit P-17 are quoted hereunder:- "6. It is also important to point out that Haryana Government have prepared a scheme linking Sutlej basin with Western yamuna Canal basin for utilising its share of 4.8. MAF when the same is harnessed after the completion of the Beas Sutlej Link by 1973-74. The Project estimate was submitted to the Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation and Power of scrutiny and approval. The Government of India have intimated that the allocation of Ravi-Beas waters may be got finalised before the Scheme is taken up for scrutiny. 7. The Haryana State can have its share out of the Ravi-Beas waters only through Bhakra and it would be a pity if the State is not in a position to utilise its share of waters for want of adequate links. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 980, and a huge amount has been spent on that score but the construction of canal within the territory of Punjab was a non starter. When the persuasion on the part of the State of Haryana failed they filed a suit in this Court, which was registered as Suit No. 1 of 1979 for implementation of the order of the Union Government dated 24th March, 1976 and for the construction of SYL Canal within the territory of Punjab within a period of 2 years. As a counter blast to the aforesaid suit the State of Punjab also filed a suit in this Court, which was registered as Suit No. 2 of 1979, challenging the validity of the order of Government of India dated 24th March, 1976 and also challenging the validity of Section 78 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966. While two suits were pending in this Court an agreement was arrived at between the State of Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan in the presence of the Prime Minister of India on 31st December, 1981, vide Exhibit P-2 and on account of the aforesaid agreement the Suits filed by the two States stood withdrawn by order dated 12th February, 1982. At this stage, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the agreement Exhibit P-2 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned shall implement the link canal in a time bound manner with such increased capacity at the cost of Rajasthan Government. The differences with regard to the alignment of the Link Canal and appurtenant works in the Punjab territory would be discussed by the Haryana and Punjab Governments who should agree to mutually acceptable canal alignment in Punjab territory including appurtenant works within a period of three months from the date of signing of this agreement. If however, the State Governments are unable to reach complete agreement within this period the matter shall be decided by the Central Government within a period of two weeks. Both the State Governments shall cooperate fully to enable Central Government to take timely decision in this regard. The decision of the Central Government in this matter shall be final and binding on both the Governments and the Canal and appurtenant works in Punjab territory shall be implemented in full by Punjab Government. However, work on the already agreed reached of the alignment would start within fifteen days of the signing of the agreement and work within the other reaches immediately after the alignment has been decided Haryana shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the agreement dated 31st December, 1981 between the plaintiffs and the State of Rajasthan. The applications for withdrawal have been made on the basis of the agreement dated 31st December, 1981 reached between the aforesaid parties. A number of applications to intervene and impleading parties to the suits have been made, but these applications have been made by the private parties who have absolutely no locus to appear in the suits. This matter has now been concluded by the decision of this Court in [1978]1SCR1 : [1978]1SCR1 State of Rajasthan and Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India etc. etc. which followed an earlier decision of this Court in [1970]2SCR522 State of Bihar v. Union of India and Anr. Moreover, the plain language of Article 131 of the Constitution clearly shows that this Court has only a limited jurisdiction to hear suits filed by the States inters or suits between States and Union Government. Article 131, therefore, does not contemplate any other party to be heard or to intervene in the matter. For these reasons, therefore, the applications for intervention and impleading parties are rejected. The prayer of the plaintiffs for withdrawal of suits is allowed and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s it is expeditiously completed, Haryana will not be in a position to utilize the full quantum of water allocated to it hereunder. The expression 'hereunder' obviously refers to the extra allocation of water under the award of the Ravi-Beas tribunal, which award has not yet been notified. But at the same time, the importance of the canal even for full utilization of the water that has been already allocated in favour of Haryana, cannot be minimised in any way. It is an admitted fact that for construction of Punjab portion of the SYL Canal, more than ₹ 560 Crores have already been spent, as is apparent from Exh. P-13 and the entire money has been paid by the Govt. of India. It is indeed a matter of great concern that while huge amount of public exchequer has been spent in the construction of the canal and only a few portion of the canal within the territory of Punjab has not been dug, the canal is not being put to use on the mere insistence of the State of Punjab. The attitude of the State of Punjab to say the least, is wholly unreasonable dogmatic and is against the national interest. It is equally a matter of great concern for this Court that the Central Government i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be held to be the will of the people. But in the matter of governance of a State or in the matter of execution of a decision taken by a previous government, on the basis of a consensus arrived at, which does not involve any political philosophy, the succeeding government must be held duty bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job rather than putting a stop to the same. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, appearing for the State of Punjab referred to the averments made on behalf of the State of Haryana in its replication to the effect:- "the existing system through which the Haryana received Ravi Beas waters namely the Bhakra Canal can carry only about 1.62 MAF" and submitted that in view of this statement made by the State of Haryana and there being no further final decision of the tribunal which had been appointed by the Central Government to determine the share of the respective States from the waters available under Ravi-Beas basin, the so-called agreement/decision in relation to the construction of SYL Canal, is nothing but a futility and, therefore, this Court should not issue any mandatory order in relation to the digging of the canal in the absence of any right being esta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 78 of the Reorganisation Act being outside the scope of the Act itself, must be read down to make it legal and the only way the same has to be read down is that the order is an Executive order, not enforceable being beyond the scope of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. In relation to the so-called agreement entered into by the Chief Ministers of different States and the Prime Minister of India dated 31st of December, 1981, Dr. Dhawan contends that the agreement read as a whole, more particularly, Clause (7) thereof unequivocally indicates that it incorporates fresh terms treating the order of the Central Government dated 24th of March, 1976 as an Executive order and re-works a fresh de novo agreement taking into account the agreement of 1955 and that agreement stood repudiated on 5.11.1985. It is further contended that the said agreement is political in nature and thus cannot assume the characteristic of conferring an enforceable right on the State of Haryana. So far as the Punjab Accord of 1985 is concerned, it is contended that the same cannot assume the status of an agreement under the constitution and on the other hand, it must be held to be a political thicket ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the intervention of the Prime Minister of the country, resulting in withdrawal of the pending suits in the Court, cannot be permitted to take a stand contrary to the agreement arrived at between themselves. We are also of the considered opinion that it was the solemn duty of the Central Government to see that the terms of the agreement are complied with in toto. That apart, more than ₹ 700 crores of public revenue cannot be allowed to be washed down the drain, when the entire portion of the canal within the territory of Haryana has already been completed and major portion of the said canal within the territory of Punjab also has been dug, leaving only minor patches within the said territory of Punjab. If the apprehension of the State is that on account of digging of canal, the State of Haryana would draw more water than that which has been allocated in its favour, then the said apprehension also is thoroughly unfounded inasmuch as the source for drawing of water is only from the reservoir, which lies within the territory of Punjab and a drop of water will not flow within the canal unless the connecting doors are open. But the quantity of water that has already been allocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
