STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. STATE OF T.NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. Nos.15 and 16 of 2016 The present interlocutory applications contain different prayers, one put forth by the State of Tamil Nadu and the other by the State of Karnataka. As advised at present, we do not intend to advert to the assertions made in the applications or the prayers made therein.

(2.) Having heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu and Mr. Fali S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka and deliberating further, we inquired from Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India what could be the possible solution in such a situation. We have asked for this not because this Court cannot adjudicate or pass appropriate orders in accordance with law to maintain and sustain the rule of law and majesty of law which are elan vital of our constitutional law, but prior to that we have thought it appropriate that there has to be discussion regard being had to the conceptual federalism prevalent in our democratic body polity.

(3.) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General has submitted that the Union of India is prepared to facilitate so that the impasse between the two States can appositely melt. Mr. Fali S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka has submitted that the Executive head of the State of Karnataka, as suggested by Mr. Rohatgi, shall be available for discussion with the competent authority of Union of India to be suggested by the Attorney General for India. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu also expressed his consent. As Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General prays for some time to have the discussion and facilitation of process, we are inclined to adjourn the matter to 2.00 p.m. on 30th September, 2016.