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

Court:Supreme Court of India
Judge:Hon'ble Hon'Ble The Chief Justice
Case Status:Disposed
Order Date:3 Sept 2002
CNR:SCIN010205122002

AI Summary

Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order

Download True Copy

Order Text

Ö2 ORIGINAL SUIT 3 OF 2002 ITEM No.1 Court No. 1 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 in ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3/2002 STATE OF TAMIL NADU Petitioner (s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent (s) (for ad-interim directions and office report) (for further directions) Date : 03/09/2002 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT For Plaintiff (s) State of Tamil Nadu Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Muthu Kumarasamy, Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Vadivel, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Umapathy, Adv. Mr. C. Paramasivam, Adv. Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Adv. For Defendant (s) State of Karnataka Mr. F S Nariman, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Javali, Sr. Adv. Mr. A N Jayaram, Adv. Genl., Karnataka. Mr. Mohan Katarki, Adv. Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. Subhash C Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. UoI Mr. Harish N. Salve, SG Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdol, Adv. State of Kerala Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Adv. Mr. John Mathew, Adv. Govt. of Pondicherry Mr. P K Manohar, Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R ........L.......I........T........T.......T.......T.......T.......J I.A. is disposed of in terms of the signed order. (D.P. WALIA) (S.L. GOYAL)@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA COURT MASTER COURT MASTER@@ A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA

(Signed Order is placed on the file)

.PL56

........L.......I.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....J.R

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. NO. 1@@ EEEEEEEEEE

IN@@ EE

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3 OF 2002@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

State of Tamil Nadu ..... Plaintiff

Versus

State of Karnataka & Ors. ..... Defendants

O R D E R@@ EEEEEEEEE

........L.......I.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......J .SP2

Pursuant to this Court's order dated 29th July, 2002, we are informed that the matter is being looked into by the Cauvery River Authority (for short "the Authority"). As per the documents placed on record, the concluding remarks of the Prime Minister shows that the Authority was awaiting suggestions from the Monitoring Committee which was required to meet and finalise before 15th September, 2002 a specific formula for deficit sharing keeping in view the directions of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal given on 3rd April, 1992. It further appears that the Prime Minister proposed that the Authority should meet some time in the third week of September 2002, so as to arrive at an agreed deficit sharing formula which would ensure equal distribution of water to the Cauvery Basin States.

..2/-

.PA

.2.

A chart indicating the storage position in Karnataka reservoirs from August 1, 2002 to August 31, 2002 has been placed on record. This indicates the inflow and outflow as well as the withdrawal and the storage of water in the four reservoirs of the State of Karnataka.

The grievance of the State of Tamil Nadu is that sufficient water is not being released which is adversely affecting its future crops. As it is likely to take a few more days before the Authority renders a final decision, in our view it will be appropriate if some interim arrangement is made.

Taking all the circumstances into consideration and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as the Solicitor General for the Union of India, we direct the State of Karnataka to release water from its reservoirs in Karnataka so as to ensure that 1.25 TMC of water is made available in Tamil Nadu Mettur Reservoir every day, till final decision is taken by the Authority. It is made clear that the order passed today will stand automatically superseded by any decision taken by the said Authority. The Authority is requested to finally ..3/-

.PA

.3.

decide the dispute between the States with regard to the pro rata sharing of water by the Cauvery Basin States, especially in time of distress. This order to operate with effect from tomorrow (4th September, 2002). I.A. is disposed of.

.SP1

.......................CJ

........................J (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

........................J (ARIJIT PASAYAT)

New Delhi; September 3, 2002.

Share This Order

Case History of Orders

Order(61) - 6 Dec 2018

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(59) - 22 Jul 2016

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(60) - 22 Jul 2016

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(57) - 15 Jul 2016

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(58) - 15 Jul 2016

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(55) - 28 Mar 2016

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(56) - 28 Mar 2016

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(53) - 15 Jan 2014

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(54) - 15 Jan 2014

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(52) - 25 Feb 2013

ROP

Click to view

Order(51) - 7 Feb 2013

ROP

Click to view

Order(50) - 4 Feb 2013

ROP

Click to view

Order(49) - 29 Jan 2013

ROP

Click to view

Order(48) - 28 Jan 2013

ROP

Click to view

Order(47) - 18 Jan 2013

ROP

Click to view

Order(46) - 4 Jan 2013

ROP

Click to view

Order(45) - 5 Dec 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(44) - 4 Dec 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(42) - 3 Dec 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(43) - 3 Dec 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(41) - 30 Nov 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(38) - 26 Nov 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(39) - 26 Nov 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(40) - 26 Nov 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(37) - 30 Oct 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(36) - 12 Oct 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(35) - 8 Oct 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(34) - 5 Oct 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(33) - 28 Sept 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(32) - 7 Sept 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(31) - 3 Sept 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(30) - 13 Aug 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(29) - 3 Aug 2009

ROP

Click to view

Order(28) - 7 Jan 2009

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(27) - 28 Nov 2008

ROP

Click to view

Order(26) - 11 Sept 2008

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(25) - 8 Sept 2008

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(24) - 9 Jul 2008

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(23) - 8 Feb 2008

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(22) - 10 Jan 2008

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(21) - 19 Nov 2007

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(20) - 18 Sept 2007

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(19) - 12 Sept 2007

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(18) - 14 May 2007

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(17) - 14 Nov 2006

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(16) - 25 Jul 2006

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(15) - 14 Feb 2006

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(14) - 5 Feb 2003

ROP

Click to view

Order(13) - 31 Jan 2003

ROP

Click to view

Order(12) - 15 Nov 2002

ROP

Click to view

Order(11) - 4 Oct 2002

ROP

Click to view

Order(10) - 30 Sept 2002

ROP

Click to view

Order(9) - 23 Sept 2002

ROP

Click to view

Order(8) - 13 Sept 2002

ROP

Click to view

Order(7) - 3 Sept 2002

ROP

Viewing

Order(6) - 29 Jul 2002

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(5) - 22 Jul 2002

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(4) - 15 Apr 2002

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(3) - 8 Jan 2002

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(2) - 3 Dec 2001

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(1) - 1 Jan 1970

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view