Case: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. P. K. SINHA

minimum of 48 hours notice shall be given for holding a meeting.2) In case, the State which is likely to be affected is not represented in the meeting, then the possibility of calling another meeting will be examined by the Committee. Provided that if the situation is such that it is not possible to delay taking a decision, then the Committee may decide the issue by majority vote even in the absence of representative from the affected State.3) The quorum for meeting of Regulation Committee shall be six Members.4) All the Members including the Chairman and Member Secretary of the Committee shall have voting right; the Chairman shall also have a casting vote. Sd/- U.P. Singh Secretary Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation, Govt. of India New Delhi-110001.?13. As aforementioned, the comments on the draft corrected scheme are mainly at the behest of State of Karnataka and State of Kerala. No suggestion has been offered by the State of Tamil Nadu to the corrected draft scheme, except to submit that the implementation of the scheme should be with utmost dispatch in consonance with the Award, as modified by this Court, in its letter and spirit. He submitted that there is distress situation in the State of Tamil Nadu due to scarcity of water which can be remedied to some extent by the effective implementation of the scheme.14. After hearing the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the suggestions/objections of the State of Karnataka and State of Kerala are devoid of merit. The fact that the subject of water, that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power, forms part of Entry 17 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, cannot be the basis to whittle down the efficacy of the Award passed by the Tribunal and as modified by this Court and, in particular, the scheme to ensure smooth, effective and efficient implementation of the Award of the Tribunal, as modified by this Court. The draft scheme has been formulated singularly for that purpose and the same will have to be taken forward to its logical end in accordance with law with promptitude.15. Reverting to the specific grievance with regard to clauses 9(3)(i) and 9(3)(vii), the argument is that the same would compel the States to furnish/place an indent for the supplies required by them on each reservoir site. That is wholly unnecessary as the Award passed by the Tribunal quantifies the volume of river water to be shared and apportioned between the States. This objection does not commend us inasmuch as the necessity to furnish/place an indent of water demand and about the total water reservoir is to work out the quantity of river water to be released during the relevant period in consonance with the proportion specified in the Award as modified by this Court and, in particular, on the principles delineated in the decision of this Court under Point No. X about the method and manner of apportionment to be followed. That is to further the rights of the States/U.T. for just and reasonable use of water from the allocable water on equitable basis and not to impinge upon their rights and moreso for smooth and effective implementation of the Award as modified by this Court.16. Coming to the suggestion/objection in reference to clause 9(3)(iii) of the draft scheme, reliance has been placed on the recommendation made by the Assessors to the Tribunal forming part of the report of the Tribunal. The Assessors had advised that 10 TMC each as carry-over storage in the reservoirs of the two States may be provided to take care of any delay in onset of South-West monsoon. That may be the recommendation of the Assessors but the allocation and distribution of river water will have to be in full conformity with the Award as modified by this Court and as aforementioned on the principles of apportionment to be followed as delineated in Point No. X of the judgment of this Court.17. Needless to observe, we cannot allow the parties to reopen the issues already settled in the Award and as modified by this Court, indirectly in the guise of questioning the appropriateness of clause 9(3)(iii) in the draft scheme. The Authority constituted under the scheme will be bound by the contours regarding apportionment of river water in terms of the Award as modified by this Court and while doing so, is expected to take into account all factors that may be relevant at the given point of time, including to identify the situation of distress in the basin caused due to identifiable factors before quantifying the water quantity for being released or allotted to the party States/U.T. for the relevant period.18. We appreciate the stand taken by Mr. Nambiar, learned senior counsel appearing for Union Territory of Puducherry, that the Authority cannot be expected to issue directions mechanically and that the Authority must have complete power to enforce its directions so as to comply with the Award, as modified by this Court, in its letter and spirit, concerning the apportionment of water between the party States/U.T. We say no more.19. Considering the fact that the Union of India has already formulated the draft scheme and has also offered explanation in I.A. No.47065 of 2018 and the affidavit filed on 7 th May, 2018 in M.A. No.934/2018 about the reasons which were beyond the control of the appropriate authority dealing with framing of the scheme, we do not wish to continue the contempt action any further. For the same reason, the directions sought in I.As. filed by the concerned party also need not detain us. For, the corrected draft scheme is in consonance with the dictum and directions in the Award as modified by this Court and also in conformity with Section 6A of the 1956 Act. The draft scheme ought to be taken forward to its logical end in accordance with law with utmost dispatch.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]14. After hearing the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the suggestions/objections of the State of Karnataka and State of Kerala are devoid of merit. The fact that the subject of water, that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power, forms part of Entry 17 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, cannot be the basis to whittle down the efficacy of the Award passed by the Tribunal and as modified by this Court and, in particular, the scheme to ensure smooth, effective and efficient implementation of the Award of the Tribunal, as modified by this Court. The draft scheme has been formulated singularly for that purpose and the same will have to be taken forward to its logical end in accordance with law with promptitude.15. Reverting to the specific grievance with regard to clauses 9(3)(i) and 9(3)(vii), the argument is that the same would compel the States to furnish/place an indent for the supplies required by them on each reservoir site. That is wholly unnecessary as the Award passed by the Tribunal quantifies the volume of river water to be shared and apportioned between the States. This objection does not commend us inasmuch as the necessity to furnish/place an indent of water demand and about the total water reservoir is to work out the quantity of river water to be released during the relevant period in consonance with the proportion specified in the Award as modified by this Court and, in particular, on the principles delineated in the decision of this Court under Point No. X about the method and manner of apportionment to be followed. That is to further the rights of the States/U.T. for just and reasonable use of water from the allocable water on equitable basis and not to impinge upon their rights and moreso for smooth and effective implementation of the Award as modified by this Court.Court.17. Needless to observe, we cannot allow the parties to reopen the issues already settled in the Award and as modified by this Court, indirectly in the guise of questioning the appropriateness of clause 9(3)(iii) in the draft scheme. The Authority constituted under the scheme will be bound by the contours regarding apportionment of river water in terms of the Award as modified by this Court and while doing so, is expected to take into account all factors that may be relevant at the given point of time, including to identify the situation of distress in the basin caused due to identifiable factors before quantifying the water quantity for being released or allotted to the party States/U.T. for the relevant period.18. We appreciate the stand taken by Mr. Nambiar, learned senior counsel appearing for Union Territory of Puducherry, that the Authority cannot be expected to issue directions mechanically and that the Authority must have complete power to enforce its directions so as to comply with the Award, as modified by this Court, in its letter and spirit, concerning the apportionment of water between the party States/U.T. We say no more.19. Considering the fact that the Union of India has already formulated the draft scheme and has also offered explanation in I.A. No.47065 of 2018 and the affidavit filed on 7 th May, 2018 in M.A. No.934/2018 about the reasons which were beyond the control of the appropriate authority dealing with framing of the scheme, we do not wish to continue the contempt action any further. For the same reason, the directions sought in I.As. filed by the concerned party also need not detain us. For, the corrected draft scheme is in consonance with the dictum and directions in the Award as modified by this Court and also in conformity with Section 6A of the 1956 Act. The draft scheme ought to be taken forward to its logical end in accordance with law with utmost dispatch.