New Delhi, January 20
In a new twist to the Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) canal case, Punjab today moved a fresh petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of its Rule 6(a) under which Haryana has sought rejection of the former’s suit for “dissolving” the decree regarding construction of the canal even as the court declined to refer the matter to a larger Bench.
A Division Bench of Ms Justice Ruma Pal and Mr Justice B.P. Singh, while rejecting the plea for referring the case to a three-judge Bench, said it would first hear arguments on Haryana’s application for rejection of Punjab’s suit.
The Bench also disagreed with Punjab’s counsel Fali S. Nariman’s contention that preliminary issues needed to be framed first in the case for hearing Haryana’s application, observing that it was not necessary.
“We will hear first Haryana’s application for rejection...there is no need to frame the issues on it,” Ms Justice Pal observed.
Haryana has sought rejection of Punjab’s suit under Rule 6(a) on the grounds that no cause of action had been spelt out by the latter in its plaint.
When the court enquired from Punjab’s counsel about the necessity for filing of the counter-suit by the state, he said the Punjab Government had sought to “discharge” it from the obligation of constructing the SYL canal due to various reasons in the changed circumstances.
The court, in its January 15, 2002, judgement, had decreed Haryana’s earlier suit against Punjab and the Centre, asking the former to complete the SYL project in its territory by January 15, 2003, failing which the Union Government would be responsible to carry out the work.
Punjab, which in its suit had stated that the decree against it was not
enforcible in the changed circumstances due to various reasons, in the fresh writ petition questioned the validity of the Supreme Court Rule 6(a) of its Order XXIII on the grounds that the constitutional remedy available to the states and the Centre was “extraordinary in character and cannot be controlled by any
technicality.”
Rule 6(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, provides for rejection of a suit for not clearly spelling out the cause of action and when it appeared to be barred by the law.
Haryana’s counsel Shanti Bhushan said since Punjab in its counter-suit had not “disclosed any cause of action” it was to be rejected under Rule 6(a).
Punjab in its petition further said that the apex court in its judgement in a 1977 case of Karnataka against the Centre had considered the question of the “applicability of the cause of action in a suit by a State under Article 131 of the Constitution and ruled that “it was maintainable”.
