LAWS(SC)-2000-4-3

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On April 25, 2000
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I had the privilege of going through the draft judgment prepared by brother G.B. Pattanaik, J. in the aforesaid suit. I respectfully agree with the same. However, looking to the importance of two pivotal issues, being issue Nos. 2 and 9 (a), (b) and (c), I have thought it fit to supplement the reasoning in the aforesaid judgment by my concurring observations on these issues as under: ISSUE NO. 2 :

(2.) HAS this Hon'ble court jurisdiction to entertain and try this Suit? (MAH). Article 131 provides as under: "131. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme court-Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute (a) XXX XXX XXX (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) between two or more States. If and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends:

(3.) EVEN if this conclusion is reached a moot question survives whether the construction of the Almatti Dam with FRL of 524.256 would ultimately result in utilisation of more water by defendant no.1 State than what is allotted by the Tribunal. This grievance, which is made subject matter of issue no.9(a) at the instance of the plaintiff State of Andhra Pradesh, has a clear nexus with the grievance of the said State about the violation of the decision of the Tribunal. Thus, even if it is held that the decision of the Tribunal regarding Scheme "A" has not expressly mentioned any permissible height to which the Almatti Dam could be constructed with appropriate storage capacity of water if it is held on evidence that the height of 524.256 FRL would result in utilisation of more water per water year than as allowed, as per clause V of the decision of the Tribunal, then the question of violation of injunction of clause V by defendant No.1 State would clearly fall for consideration. It is in that light that we have to consider the grievance of the plaintiff-State.