New Delhi, February 11
The Supreme Court today reserved its judgement on the application of Haryana, seeking dismissal of Punjab’s suit for dissolving the court’s decree against it regarding the completion of the Satluj Yamuna Link (SYL) canal even as the latter asserted that its plea was not politically motivated.
“The court may reject Punjab’s suit in leminy if it is proved that the dispute (on SYL) is based on political considerations,” senior advocate Fali S. Nariman, appearing for Punjab, told a Bench comprising Ms Justice Ruma Pal and Mr Justice P.V. Reddi.
Responding to Haryana counsel Shanti Bhushan’s arguments that Punjab had no legal right to seek the dissolution of the final decree passed by the apex court on January 15, 2002, making it mandatory to complete the SYL project within a year, Mr Nariman claimed that the suit was not barred by the principle of res judicata (no legal right to challenge a final verdict).
The right of a state to seek modification of the apex court’s final order under Article 131 of the Constitution had been settled in the Karnataka case by a seven-Judge Bench on the Krishna water dispute, he said.
“The legal right is different than the political right. When the state of Punjab has a remedy under Article 131 of the Constitution to file a suit for reconsideration of the decree, it is a legal right, not a political right. It is not based on any emotive issue,” Punjab’s counsel said.
But Haryana’s counsel questioned the stand of Punjab that it had a legal right to seek the modification of the final decree, saying the court had made it mandatory for the latter to complete the SYL project within one year. “Even a subsequent review petition of Punjab against the judgement, was rejected by the court,” he said.
However, Mr Nariman said Punjab had not wilfully disobeyed the court verdict for construction of the canal as there had been a lot of changes in the circumstances during the past two decade as the inflow in the Ravi and the Beas, the waters of which had to be brought to Haryana through the SYL, has been reduced from 17.17 MAF to 14.37 MAF.
But the court made it clear that the water dispute was not the subject matter of the suit as it was only confined to the question of completion of the canal.
Mr Nariman said while considering the application of Haryana, the court had to take into consideration the fact that Punjab’s plea that the decree was not enforcible against it in the changed circumstances, had not been applied in the earlier case, on which the final decree was passed on January 15, 2002.
Haryana’s counsel also questioned the locus standi of Punjab to seek dissolution of the decree by filing a suit independently of the Centre as the verdict was against both the state and the Union Government.
The judgement had clearly stated that Punjab would complete the project by January 15, 2003, and the Union Government would ensure its completion, Mr Shanti Bhushan said, adding that Haryana had also filed a suit for the execution of the work by the Centre after Punjab had failed to implement the court order.
Haryana’s counsel told the court that so far, several hundred crores had been spent on the SYL project, of which Rs 500 crore were spent by Punjab itself and Rs 496 crore were provided by the Centre.
“Would the entire amount be allowed to go down the drain,” Haryana’s counsel asked and alleged that the suit was an attempt by Punjab to scuttle the court verdict.
