Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

STATE OF KARNATAKA V/S STATE OF T. NADU & OTHERS, decided on Tuesday, October 18, 2016.
[ In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 2453 of 2007, 2454 of 2007, 2456 of 2007. ] 18/10/2016
Advocate(s) : Fali S. Nariman, Anil B. Divan, S.S. Javali, Sr. , (M.R. Naik, Adv. Gen.), Mohan V. Katarki, S.C. Sharma, V.N. Raghupathy, R.S. Ravi, J.M. Gangadhar, Ranvir Singh, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Jaideep gupta, Sr. , G. Prakash, Jishnu, Priyanka Prakash, Beena Prakash, Manu Srinath, B. Balaji, Mukul Rohatgi, AG, Pinky Anand, ASG, Ajay Sharma, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Madhavi Divan, Nidhi Khanna, Zaid Ali, Snidha Mehra, Somya Rathore, Karan Seth, Saudamini Sharma, Kritika Sachdeva, D.S. Mahra, Shekhar Naphade, Rakesh Dwivedi, Subramonium Prasad, Sr. , G. Umapathy, C. Paramasivam, B. Balaji, Rajesh Mahale, A.S. Nambiar, Sr. , V.G. Pragasam, P.K. Manohar, Shania Vasudevan, Prabu Ramasubramanian, Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.S. Bhasme, B. Balaji, Ramesh Babu M.R..
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  M/s. Rpp Constructions (P) Ltd. Versus Rites Ltd.,   11/01/2017.  

  M/s. BrahMos Aerospace Private Limited & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader High Court & Others,   10/01/2017.  

  Secretary Mahatama Gandhi Mission & Another Versus Bhartiya Kamgar Sena & Others,   05/01/2017.  

  Kishore Bhadke Versus State of Maharashtra,   03/01/2017.  

  Abhiram Singh & Another Versus C.D. Commachen (Dead) By Lrs. & Others,   02/01/2017.  

  Jitender @ Kalla Versus State Govt of NCT of Delhi,   24/12/2016.  

  Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai, Mahapalika Marg Versus Kachara Vahtuk Shramik Sangh,   22/12/2016.  

  K.R. Sureshkumar, Proprietor, M/S. Kallada Tours & Travels Versus State of Kerala, Represented By The Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department, North Block, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others,   21/12/2016.  

  Moorthy Versus State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Inspector of Police Karipatti Police Station, Salem District,   21/12/2016.  

  K.Subramanian Versus The Chief Passenger Transportation Manager & Revisionary Authority, Southern Railway, Chennai & Others,   20/12/2016.  

  Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College & Hospital & Others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others,   20/12/2016.  

  Citizens Forum for Mangalore Development, Represented by its Joint Co-Ordinator Vidya Dinker & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary & Others,   13/12/2016.  

  Anant H. Ulahalkar & Another Versus Chief Election Commissioner & Others,   09/12/2016.  

  State of Karnataka Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Others,   09/12/2016.  

  Vijayashreepura Kshemabivrudhi Sangha (Okkoota) Regd., Represented by its President & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary & Others,   06/12/2016.  

  R. Venkataraman (deceased) & Others Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Govt. Fort St. George Chennai,   05/12/2016.  

  M/s. WS Retail Services Private Limited, Rep., by its Authorised Signatory, Puducherry Versus Union of India, Through the Secretary, New Delhi & Others,   02/12/2016.  

  Mumbai Port Trust Non SC/ST Employees & Another Versus The Board of Trustees of Mumbai Port & Others,   01/12/2016.  

  R. Tamilselvi Versus A. Sangamuthu & Others,   01/12/2016.  

  Pfizer Limited & Another Versus Union of India & Another,   01/12/2016.  

  Manoj Prabhakar Lohar Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through State CID) & Another,   24/11/2016.  

  Kuppan Versus Managing Director Karnataka State Transport Corpn. Ltd., Bangalore Rural Division Archakarahalli, P.M.Road Ramnagaram, Karnataka & Another,   16/11/2016.  

  D. Mahesh Kumar Versus State of Telangana, Department of Revenue, Rep, by its Principal Secretary & Others,   16/11/2016.  

  N.P. Shailesh & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi & Others,   15/11/2016.  

  The Registrar Judicial, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai Versus The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others,   15/11/2016.  

  The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Hussain Babulal Shaikh & Others,   15/11/2016.  

  Commercial Tax Officer & Others Versus State Bank of India & Another,   08/11/2016.  

  I. Kezhson Versus The Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others,   08/11/2016.  

  K. Harish Babu Versus Union of India by the Ministry of Home Affairs & Others,   07/11/2016.  

  P. Vellaisamy & Another Versus The Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Others,   07/11/2016.  

  Farkhondeh Khanum Versus The Board of Wakfs, West Bengal & Another ,   04/11/2016.  

  The State of Karnataka Represented by the Secretary Versus M/s. Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited, Mysore,   02/11/2016.  

  Satya Pal Anand Versus State of M.P. & Others,   26/10/2016.  

  BEST Worker's Union Versus Union of India & Others ,   24/10/2016.  

  P.K. Ramalingam Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others,   21/10/2016.  

  K. Seetha Versus The Managing Trustee, Thiruvangad Sreeramaswami Temple,Thiruvangad & Others,   21/10/2016.  

  The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai Versus A.K. Krishnamurthy & Another,   20/10/2016.  

  Yogesh Singh Versus Mahabeer Singh & Others,   20/10/2016.  

  S. Leelavathi Versus K. Subramaniam,   20/10/2016.  

  M/s. Hotel A.R.A.P. (P) Ltd., Chennai Versus M/s. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd., Chennai,   20/10/2016.  

  Shalibhadra Developers Versus Secretary,   18/10/2016.  

  Ramdas & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department & Others,   18/10/2016.  

  Kamalamma & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. By Its Secretary, Bangalore & Others,   17/10/2016.  

  Leesha Versus The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Bangalore & Another,   17/10/2016.  

  Jyoti Thakur Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Others,   07/10/2016.  

  R. Muthuselvi Versus The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai,   07/10/2016.  

  M/s. Deutsche Bank AG, Bangalore Versus The State of Karnataka, Bangalore & Others,   07/10/2016.  

  S. Visalakshi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department & Another,   06/10/2016.  

  State of T. Nadu Versus State of Karnataka & Others,   04/10/2016.  

  Raja & Others Versus State of Karnataka,   04/10/2016.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

    Mr. Mukul Rohatgi learned Attorney General for India being assisted by Ms. Pinky Anand learned Additional Solicitor General has filed the Report of the Committee. The conclusion of the Report reads as under:-Social Aspects1. The plights of farmers in both the states have been witnessed. In the absence of required water the labour employment for farming and fishing is also limited creating a scenario of unemployment and financial hardship to them.2. There has been large number of suicides reported in Mandya district of Karnataka.3. The Government of Karnataka has declared 42 out of 48 Talukas under Cauvery basin as drought affected Talukas based on Central Government guidelines.4. Both the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu need to appreciate interest of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry in protection of their established irrigation and Karnataka's aspirations for development respectively and should educate their people accordingly.Technical Aspects1. The deficit impact on account of water allocation at 50% dependability can be neutralised to some extent by optimal dynamic and resilient planning of the cropped area considering the flow pattern and forecast. This can address the issue of unemployment and financial hardship in the basin States.2. The water application techniques are outdated and unscientific and the value of water is not realised. The water applied to the field is on the concept of flooding from one field to another adjacent field and as such the water consumption is on the higher side and during period of distress this becomes very significant depending upon the soil condition. The infrastructure to deliver water to the farmers is century old and has very low conveyance efficiency. This needs to be modernised for optimal use of scarce water. The conveyance efficiency can be further improved by piped distribution network and application efficiency by micro irrigation (sprinkler and drip) and precision irrigation. In addition on-farm development (OFD) works may be provided to ensure equitable distribution of water to individual farmer's field.3. At places near the coast the ground water cannot be utilised for the reason that water is saline due to ingress from sea water. The only source of irrigation in such areas is surface water from Mettur reservoir.4. The efforts made by Government of Tamil Nadu by way of providing subsidised agricultural inputs can bear fruits only when sufficient water is made available for the full crop period.5. The drinking water demands needs to be optimised and efficient delivery mechanism needs to be put in place.6. Automated water measuring instrumentation needs to be provided for transparent recording of flows and water diversion along with system for online transmission and retrieval of data through dashboard.7. Crop alignment and crop diversification need to be practiced.8. Participatory Irrigation Management is to be encouraged for optimal efficient and equitable distribution of water amongst the farmers.2. As we find from the Report the Committee has not suggested with regard to any quantity of water. Mr. Rohatgi learned Attorney General has when the matter was taken up at forenoon session submitted that the appeals by special leave filed by all the States namely Karnataka Tamil Nadu and Kerala are not maintainable. Mr. A.S. Nambiar learned senior counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Puducherry echoed the same argument.3. Mr. Rohatgi addressed at length with regard to the maintainability of the appeals and after he has finished Mr. Fali S. Nariman learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka commenced his submission. The stand of Mr. Nariman is that the appeal by special leave is maintainable. We intend to adjudicate the maintainability of the appeals which have been preferred by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution first.4. At this juncture the issue that arises for consideration is what should be the nature of interim order. On 4th October 2016 we had directed the State of Karnataka to release 2000 cusecs of water from 7th October till 18th October 2016. It is submitted by Mr. M.R. Naik learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Karnataka that the order has been complied with.5. Mr. Shekhar Naphade learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu submits that the State is in dire need of water. We take note of it. Mr. Nariman learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka submitted with quite promptitude that the Karnataka is also not in a better stage. Mr. Rohatgi learned Attorney General referred to the Report to highlight the issue that both the States are in the state of dire need of water. We have been apprised that north-east monsoon has not yet set in and the prediction is that it is likely to set in from 25th October 2016. We have so recorded as the learned counsel at the Bar have apprised us so.6. Let the matter be listed on 19th October 2016 for further hearing. The interim order passed on the earlier occasion shall continue until further orders.7. At this stage we are compelled to reiterate our earlier order in which we had expressed with certitude that the Executive of both the States shall see to it that the peace and harmony be maintained in both the States and citizens do not become law unto themselves. It will be the obligation of the Executive to see that when the matter is heard and the interim order has been passed and the State of Karnataka is complying with the order and is bound to comply mutuality of respect between both the States and the citizens should be maintained. Maintenance of law and order and care for public property is a sign of elevated democracy.