Tumukuru Jilla Hemavathy Nala A. Vedike vs. The State Of Karnataka State Of Karnataka . Through Chief Secretary

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2013 IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 5 of 2012 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3 OF 2002

Applicant(s)

STATE OF TAMIL NADU Plaintiff (s)/

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Defendant(s)

O R D E R

We have heard heard Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff/applicant - State of Tamil Nadu, and Mr. Anil B. Divan, learned senior counsel for the defendant No. 1 - State of Karnataka.

2. In pursuance of our order dated February 4, 2013, the Expert Committee has submitted its report with respect to the status of standing crops in three districts - Thanjavur, Thiruvarur and Nagapathinam - of Tamil Nadu in Cauvery Delta region for the purpose of irrigation water requirements.

3. The Expert Committee has observed that for the standing crops in above three districts of Tamil Nadu delta region, water requirement for one wetting (Area - 45000 Acres) may be 0.71 TMC and water requirement for two wetting (Area - 55000 Acres) 1.73 TMC. Thus the total water requirement for the standing crops as assessed by the Expert Committee is 2.44 TMC.

4. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for Tamil Nadu, handed over to us an affidavit of R. Subramanian, Chairman, Cauvery Technical Cell-cum-Inter State Waters Wing, Water Resources Department, Government of Tamil Nadu in response to the report of the Expert Committee. In the affidavit it is stated that the inferences drawn and the estimation of water requirement of the standing crops by the Expert Committee is wholly incorrect and untenable and in a way it is arbitrary.

5. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel, asserted what has been stated in the affidavit of R. Subramanian. 6. We are unable to give any credence to the affidavit of R. Subramanian.

6. We find no justifiable reason not to act on the recommendations of the Expert Committee which, in our opinion, has done a fair job in the shortest possible time given to it. Obviously, the Expert Committee in such short time could not have given very accurate position of the standing crops and the water requirement, but it cannot be said that the recommendations of the Expert Committee are wholly incorrect and untenable or it is arbitrary.

7. The entire exercise of appointment of an Expert Committee became necessary as there was serious dispute in respect of exact status of the standing crops. The Expert Committee has provided to the Court enough basis for passing an appropriate order on the application made by Tamil Nadu for directing Karnataka to release 12 TMC ft of water to save the standing crops in the Cauvery Delta of Tamil Nadu. 9. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the report of the Expert Committee dated February 6, 2013 and the entire material available on record, we are satisfied that interest of justice shall be met if Karnataka is directed to release 2.44 TMC ft of water to replenish Mettur for the purpose of standing crops in the Cauvery Delta region in Tamil Nadu. We order accordingly. 10. Karnataka shall release the water as directed above forthwith. 11. We are satisfied that release of 2.44 TMC ft of water by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu shall not deprive Karnataka of its drinking water requirements for Bengaluru. 12. I.A. No. 1 of 2013 in I.A. No. 5 of 2012 stands disposed of accordingly.

........................J. ( R.M. LODHA )

........................J. ( J. CHELAMESWAR )

FEBRUARY 7, 2013 ( MADAN B. LOKUR ) ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. No. 1/2013 in I.A. No. 5/2012 & I.A. Nos. 5-6 in ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3 OF 2002 STATE OF TAMIL NADU Plaintiff (s)/ Applicant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Defendant(s) (for directions and office report) WITH S.L.P. (Civil)......[CC 22481/2012] (for permission to file SLP without c/copy as well as plain copy of impugned order and Office report) WITH SLP(C) NO. 38501 of 2012 (With appln(s) for permission to place additional documents on record and

NEW DELHI; ........................J.

office report) Date: 07/02/2013 The IA and SLPs were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR For Plaintiff(s)/ For Applicant(s) O.S. 3/2002 State of Tamil Nadu Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, A.A.G. Mr. G. Umapathy, Adv. Mr. C. Parmasivam, Adv. Mr. Subramoniam Prasad, AAG Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. For Petitioner(s) SLP....[CC 22481/2012] & Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. SLP 38501/12 For Defendant (s)/ For Respondents(s) State of Karnataka Mr. Anil B. Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Vijay Shankar, Adv. Mr. Mohan V. Katarki, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. Brijesh Kalappa, Adv. Mr. S.C. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ranvir Singh, Adv. State of Kerala Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv. Mr. G. Prakash ,Adv. (Not Present) Mr. H.P. Raval, A.S.G. Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal ,Adv. U.T., Puducherry Mr. A.S. Nambiar, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam ,Adv Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv. Ms. Shanta Vasudevan, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

I.A. No. 1/2013 in I.A. No. 5/2012 in ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3 OF 2002

I.A. No. 1 of 2013 in I.A. No. 5 of 2012 is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

For further directions list the matter on February 25, 2013.

S.L.P. (Civil)........[CC 22481/2012] & SLP(C) NO. 38501 of 2012

List these special leave petitions on February 25, 2013.

|(Rajesh Dham) | |(Renu Diwan) |

|Court Master | |Court Master |

(signed order is placed on the file)