New Delhi, February 10
The Supreme Court today declined to entertain a petition of Punjab challenging the validity of its Rule 6(a) under which Haryana has sought the rejection of the former’s suit for the dissolution of the apex court’s decree for the construction of the controversial Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) canal.
The court also rejected the Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU) Punjab unit’s petition for the reconsideration of its January 15, 2002, decree for the construction of the SYL in the territory of Punjab by the state, saying the farmer’s organisation had no “locus standi (legal right)” to intervene in the case as a party.
A Bench of Ms Justice Ruma Pal and Mr Justice P.V. Reddi said to avoid multiplicity of litigations, Punjab’s writ petition was not required to be entertained separately as the question whether the Rule 6(a) would be applicable in the matter would be dealt with while deciding Haryana’s application for the rejection of Punjab’s suit.
Dismissing the BKU counsel’s contention that by sharing the water of Ravi and Beas through the SYL canal with Haryana, the farmers in Punjab would suffer immensely as the inflow of the water in the rivers had been reduced over the past two decades, the Bench said “there are farmers in Punjab as well as in Haryana. The issue should not be dealt with on such emotional grounds.”
The court had dealt with all issues and a lot of money had been spent on the construction of 20-m wide canal, but a small portion of it remained to be constructed, the Bench reminded BKU counsel Harvinder Chaudhary.
“The farmers of Punjab have to share their problems with their brothers in Haryana, who are also facing the same situation on water scarcity,” the court observed.
Earlier, Punjab’s counsel Fali S. Nariman challenged Rule 6(a) dealing with the original suits filed before the apex court on inter-state disputes and states’ disputes with the Centre argued that the said rule “violated” the provision of Article 131, under which such matters were entertained by the court.
Haryana’s counsel Shanti Bhushan sought the rejection of Punjab’s counter suit for the dissolution of the decree and absolving the state from the responsibility of constructing the canal in its territory, contending that it was an attempt to “subvert the final verdict of the court”.
Since Punjab had not spelt out the “cause of action as well as which of its legal right has been affected by the judgment, its suit deserves to be rejected,” said Shanti Bhushan in his inconclusive arguments.
He said, in fact, all issues raised by Punjab in its suit had been dealt with by the court in its judgment, he said adding “this was an attempt to misuse the judicial process by Punjab”.
However, Nariman said Punjab’s legal right to seek the modification of the final decree could not be taken away under the garb of Rule 6(a) as this question had been decided earlier by a seven-judge as well as a five-judge constitution Benches.
“Unless Haryana files a written statement (reply) to Punjab’s suit, how can it be determined there was dispute over the cause of action,” he said.
When the Bench clarified that it would not read the Rule 6(a) in a strict sense and its validity as questioned by Punjab would be tested on the basis of Haryana’s argument on its application, Nariman did not press further the writ petition, filed by Punjab.
Punjab’s counsel would respond to Haryana’s arguments tomorrow on the point how the state’s suit for dissolution of the decree was maintainable.
