Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

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
Judge(s) : DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY & A.M. KHANWILKAR
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:-


  Ashok Bind Versus The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),   20/06/2017.  

  Binoy Viswam Versus Union of India & Others,   09/06/2017.  

  Shriram Sankaran Versus The Inspector of Police, Basavangudi Police Station, Karnataka,   29/05/2017.  

  Sugapriya Paper & Boards (P) Ltd., Represented by its Director V. Surya & Another Versus Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Chennai & Others,   25/05/2017.  

  Anoop Singh & Others Versus State,   12/05/2017.  

  Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler S.P.A. ? Titagarh Wagons Ltd. through Authorized Signatory, West Bengal Versus Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.,   09/05/2017.  

  Dr. S. Preethiswary & Others Versus Dr. G. Kamaleshwaran & Others,   06/05/2017.  

  Dr. M. Hemalatha & Others Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others,   02/05/2017.  

  Baldev Singh & Others Versus State of H.P.,   29/04/2017.  

  Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Represented by its General Manager Versus Shanthi & Others,   28/04/2017.  

  G. Easwaran Versus State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance & Anti Corruption Chennai ,   21/04/2017.  

  Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Janeshwar Lal Rajeshwar Lal & Others,   19/04/2017.  

  Sudha Renukaiah & Others Versus State of A.P.,   13/04/2017.  

  M/s. Senthil Pile Foundation, Malar Illam, Rep by Authorized Signatory, M. Senthilkumar, Trichy VersusThe Chief Engineer, TWAD Board, Tanjore & Others,   13/04/2017.  

  Charandas Swami Versus State of Gujarat & Another,   10/04/2017.  

  Priyanka Dutta & Another Versus State of West Bengal & Others,   10/04/2017.  

  K.C. Shankare Gowda & Others Veruss The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others,   06/04/2017.  

  Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Rep. By its Authorized Signatory Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad - IV, Chennai,   04/04/2017.  

  Rajender Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh,   03/04/2017.  

  The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kancheepuram Versus Kokila & Others,   03/04/2017.  

  Pidathala Satyam Babu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Public Prosecutor A.P.,   31/03/2017.  

  Mamta Sharma & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Chhattisgarh & Others,   31/03/2017.  

  Vineet Kumar & Others Versus State of U.P. & Another,   31/03/2017.  

  The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Sec. & Others Versus K. Balu & Another,   31/03/2017.  

  The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Chennai & Others Versus Saravana Pandian & Others,   28/03/2017.  

  Sukh Dev Versus State of U P,   22/03/2017.  

  M/s. Nagardas Kanji Shah, Rep. by its Partner & Authorised Signatory Viren Nagardas Shah Versus Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai,   22/03/2017.  

  State of Karnataka Versus State of T. Nadu & Others,   21/03/2017.  

  Ch. Chinnakishore Venukoti Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Commissioner & Director of School Education & Others,   20/03/2017.  

  R. Koperundevi Versus P. Loganathan,   20/03/2017.  

  K. Subbammal & Others Versus The Senior Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chokkikulam, Madurai & Others,   17/03/2017.  

  Kalappa Since Deceased By His LRs & Others Versus Nagamma & Others,   15/03/2017.  

  Nausheena Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Under Secretary & Others,   14/03/2017.  

  Secretary to Govt. Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Secretariat & Another Versus A. Singamuthu,   07/03/2017.  

  G. Rama Mohan Rao & Another Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary and Chairman, Agricultural, Marketing & Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another,   07/03/2017.  

  Dr. Mangala Sridhar Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary & Another,   06/03/2017.  

  K. Murugan & Others Versus Dr. V.K. Marimuthu & Others,   03/03/2017.  

  M/s. JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited, Rep. by S. Ravi, Director Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment Circle, Chennai,   01/03/2017.  

  Mebal Kumari Versus Thanka Nadar & Another,   01/03/2017.  

  Avtar Singh Kalra & Others Versus High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh & Another,   01/03/2017.  

  Dr. Joseph Verghese Versus The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai & Others,   22/02/2017.  

  S. Mahendrakumar Versus The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai & Others,   21/02/2017.  

  Prabhakara Adiga Versus Gowri & Others,   20/02/2017.  

  The District Registrar, Tirunelveli & Others Versus R. Chidambara Raja Ratinam & Others,   15/02/2017.  

  The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Secretary Versus M/s. Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, Bengaluru,   15/02/2017.  

  State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Collector of Kanyakumari District &Another Versus A. Raju & Others,   14/02/2017.  

  Arjun & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh,   14/02/2017.  

  The Management of Foundation Garments Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director ?Divine Grace? Versus Government of Tamil Nadu Labour & Employment (A1) Department, Represented by its Principal Secretary,   10/02/2017.  

  N. Sivapandy Versus The District Revenue Officer, Madurai,   08/02/2017.  

  In Re: Rachakonda Satya Sravan Kumar Versus ACE Educational Services Private Limited & Others,   08/02/2017.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2016 (10) Scale 117"  ==   "2016 (10) SCC 617"  ==   "(Full Bench)"  







    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.