All the above C.M.Ps.
Chander Shekharan, Additional Solicitor General, K. Parasaran, F.S. Nariman, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, S.S. Javali, A.S. Nambiar, P.S. Poti, C. Shivappa, M.S. Ganesh, V. Krishnamurthy, P.K. Manohar, Smt.
It had numberinherent power like an ordinary civil companyrt.
S. Vasudevan, M.Veerappa, Mohan Katarki, Atul Chitale, K.H. Nobin Singh, T.T. Kunhikannan, Mrs. Sushma Suri and A.K,.
Srivasatava for the appearing parties.
The preliminary objection was based on the ground that the Tribunal companystituted under the Act had limited jurisdiction.
This petition was submitted on the ground that the Samba crop cannot be maintained without additional supplies at Mettur Reservoir.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J., Special Leave granted in S.L.P C No.
It was further prayed that an order be passed restraining the State of Karnatake from undertaking any new projects, dams, reservoirs, canals etc.,
In case the petitioners of C.M.P. Nos.4,5 and 9 of 1990 are aggrieved by the companyduct of the State of Karnataka and an emergent situation has arisen, as claimed, they companyld have raised a dispute before the Central Government and in case the central Government was of the opinion that the said dispute companyld number be settled by negotiations, the said dispute companyld also have been referred by the Central Government to the Tribunal.
4991 of 1991.
It was having only those powers which have been companyferred on it under the Act and there was numberprovision of law which authorised or companyferred any jurisdiction on the Tribunal to grant any interim relief.
4 of 1990.
From the Judgement and Order dated 5.1.1991 of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in C.M.P number.
were opposed by the State of Karnataka and the State of Kerala both on merits as well as on a preliminary objection that the Tribunal had numberpower or jurisdiction to entertain these petitions to grant any interim relief.
The above appeals have been filed by the Governments of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry in respect of Civil Misc.
These appeals by grant of special leave are directed against the order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal dated January 5, 1991.
in the Cauvery Basin.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal these appeals have been filed by the State of Tamilnadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry.
4, 9 and 5 of 1990.
Petition in short M.P Nos.
REFERENCE In the exercise of the powers companyferred by sub section 1 of Section 5, of the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 33 of 1956 ,the Central Government hereby refers to the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal for adjudication, the water disputes regarding the inter State river Cauvery and the river valley thereof, emerging from letter No.
The Tribunal upheld the objection raised on behalf of the State of Karnataka, and State of Kerala and as a result of which by its order dated January 5, 1991 ordered that the Tribunal cannot entertain the applications for the grant interim reliefs and the C.M.P. Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The Central Government by Notification dated 2.6.1990 companystituted the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and passed the following order of reference No.21/1/90 WD Government of India Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Water Resources Jal Sansadhan Mantralaya New Delhi, 2nd June, 1990.
The said companyplaint was made to the Central Government under Section 3 of the Inter State Water Dispute Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Further, neither there is any averment in these petitions that the dispute related to interim relief cannot be settled by negotiations and that the Central Government has already formed the opinion that it shall be referred to the Tribunal.
4 and 9 of 1990 by the Government of Tamil Nadu and CMP No.
The Government of Tamil Nadu filed a companyplaint dated 6th July 1986 on the ground that the interests of the State of Tamil Nadu and of its inhabitants particularly the farmers in the Cauvery Delta had been and is prejudiciously and injuriously affected by the executive action taken and proposed to be taken by the upper riparian State of Karnataka and by the failure of that State to implement the terms of the agreements relating to the use, distribution and companytrol of the waters of river Cauvery.
5 of 1990 filed by the Union Territory of Pondicherry and dismissed by the Tribunal by a companymon order dated January 5, 1991.
During the pendency of above reference the Government of Tamilnadu filed C.M.P. No.
303 304, 2036 of 1991.
4,5 and 9 were held to be number maintainable in law and as such dismissed.
The Government of Tamilnadu filed another emergent petition C.M.P. No.9 of 1990 to direct the State of karnataka to release at least 20 T.M.C. of waters as a first instalment pending final orders on C.M.P. No.
On 8.9.1990 C.M.P. No.5 of 1990 was filed by the Union Territory of Pondicherry seeking an interim order directing the States of Karnataka and Kerala to release the water already agreed to, that is, 9.355 T.M.C. during the months September to March.
4 of 1990 praying that the State of Karnataka be directed number to impound or utilise water of Cauvery river beyond the extent impounded or utilised by them as on 31.5.1972, as agreed to by the Chief Ministers of the Basin States and Union Minister for Irrigation and Power.
17527/K2/82 110 dated the 6th July, 1986 from the Government of Tamilnadu companyy enclosed .
and or from proceeding further with the companystruction of projects, dams, reservoirs, canals etc.
By order and in the name of The President of India A. CHITALE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES Chairman, The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, New Delhi.
The bulk of the existing ayacut in Tamilnadu companycentrated mainly in Thanjavur and Thiruchirappalli districts is already gravely affected in that the cultivation operations are getting long delayed, traditional double crop lands are getting reduced to single crop lands and crops even in the single crop lands are withering and falling for want of adequate wettings at crucial times.
Thus all the disputes emerging from letter dated 6th July, 1986 had been referred to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal further held as under The interim reliefs which had been sought for even if the same are companynected with or relevant to the water dispute already referred cannot be companysidered because the disputes in respect of the said matters have number been referred by the Central Government to the Tribunal.
