REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 512 OF 2002

“IN RE : NETWORKING OF RIVERS”

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 668 OF 2002

J U D G M E N T

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Nearly ten years back, the petitioner in Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 668 of 2002, a practicing advocate, instituted the

petition based on some study that there was a need to

conserve water and properly utilize the available resources.

Thus, the present petition has been instituted with the

following prayers:-

“a.Issue an appropriate writ order or

direction, more particularly a writ in

the nature of Mandamus directing the

respondent no. 1 to take appropriate

1

steps/action to nationalize all the

rivers in the country.

b.Issue an appropriate writ order or

direction, more particularly a writ in

the nature of Mandamus, directing

the respondent No. 1 to take

appropriate steps/action to inter link

the rivers in the southern peninsula

namely, Ganga, Kaveri, Vaigai and

Tambaravani.

c.Issue an appropriate writ order or

direction in the nature of mandamus

directing the respondents to

formulate a scheme whereby the

water from the west flowing rivers

could be channelized and equitably

distributed.”

2. The above directions were sought by the petitioner

against the Central Government as well as against various

State Governments, for effective management of the water

resources in the country by nationalization and inter-linking

of rivers from Ganga - Cauveri, Vaigai-Tambaravarmi up to

Cape Kumari. According to him, as early as in 1834, Sir

Arthur Cotton, who had constructed the Godavari and

Krishna dams, suggested a plan called the ‘Arthur Cotton

2

Scheme’ to link the Ganga and Cauveri rivers. In 1930, Sir

C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyar also suggested and supported such

-

a scheme. Thereafter, various political leaders of the

country have supported the cause; but no such schemes

have actually been implemented. It is the case of the

petitioner that the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (for

short ‘the Act’) and the River Boards Act, 1956 were enacted

by the Parliament under Article 262 read with Entry 56 of

List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India,

1950 (hereafter, ‘the Constitution’). Due to reluctance of

water-rich States, the National Water Development Agency

(hereafter, ‘NWDA’) has not been allowed to undertake

detailed survey and it is argued that only by nationalization

of the rivers, by the Government of India, this problem can

be resolved to some extent. The petitioner had filed a writ

before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, being Writ

Petition No. 6207 of 1983, praying for various reliefs. This

Writ Petition was disposed of without any effective orders by

the High Court. Persisting with his effort, the petitioner

3

earlier filed writ petitions before this Court, being Writ

Petition (C) No. 75 of 1998 and Writ Petition (C) No. 15 of -

1999, praying inter alia for nationalized navigation and

inter-linking of all the rivers in the country.

3. We must notice, to put the records straight, that on

29

th

September, 1994, a Bench of this Court took suo motu

notice of a write-up that had appeared in the Hindustan

Times newspaper, dated 18

th

July, 1994, titled “And quiet

flows the maili Yamuna”. Notice was issued to the Central

Pollution Control Board, Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Irrigation and Flood Department of the Government of India,

National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Delhi

Administration. Since then, the writ petition is being

continuously monitored by this Court, till date. During the

pendency of this writ petition, I.A. No. 27 came to be filed,

wherein the learned Amicus Curiae in that case referred to

the address of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, the then President of

India, on the eve of the Independence Day. This, inter alia,

related to creating a network between various rivers in the

4

country, with a view to deal with the paradoxical situation

of floods in one part of the country and droughts in other

parts. In other words, it related to the inter-linking of rivers

-

and taking of other water management measures. On 16

th

September, 2002, this Court, while considering the said I.A.,

directed that the application be treated as an independent

writ petition and issued notice to the various State

Governments as well as the Attorney General for India and

passed the following order:-

“Based on the speech of the President on

the Independence Day Eve relating to the

need of networking of the rivers because

of the paradoxical phenomenon of flood

in one part of the country while some

other parts face drought at the same

time, the present application is filed. It

will be more appropriate to treat to treat

it as independent Public Interest

Litigation with the cause title “IN RE :

NETWORKING OF RIVERS -- v. ---”

Amended cause title be filed within a

week.

Issue notice returnable on 30

th

September, 2002 to the respondents as

well as to the Attorney General.

5

Serve notice on the standing counsel of

the respective States.

Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.”

4. This is how I.A. No. 27 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.

725 of 1994 was converted into Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512

of -

2002. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512 of 2002 was taken up

for hearing and notice was issued to all the States, inviting

affidavits regarding their stance on the issue of networking

of rivers.

5. In view of the above order, the petitioner in Writ

Petition (Civil) No. 668 of 2002 withdrew Writ Petition (C)

No. 75 of 1998 as well as Writ Petition (C) 15 of 1999, which

leave was granted by this Court.

6. As already discussed above, the petitioner had filed

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 668 of 2002 with somewhat similar

prayers as contained in I.A. No. 27. In that writ petition,

the petitioner has averred that no prayer with regard to

inter linking of rivers covering the southern part of the

6

Peninsular Region had been claimed and it was also his

contention that the southern part was most drought prone

and had been witnessing more inter-state water disputes.

Thus, he had filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 668 of

2002 and prayers made therein were liable to be allowed.

-

7. In the present case, we are concerned with Writ

Petition (C) No.668 of 2002, Writ Petition (C) No. 512 of

2002 as well as the I.A.s and the contempt petitions filed in

these two petitions. Accordingly, this order shall dispose of

all these matters but we make it clear that presently, we are

not dealing with Writ Petition (C) No. 725 of 1994.

8. It has also been averred by the petitioners and the

intervenors in these petitions that the need to conserve

water resources and assuring their optimum consumption

can be seen from the steps taken in this regard, not only by

the developed countries but also by developing and under-

developed countries. The Government of India has always

shown considerable concern regarding the management of

7

water resources in the country and had framed, for this

purpose, the National Water Policy which is being updated

on a yearly basis. The National Water Policy seeks to make

available water supply to those areas which face shortages.

This aspect of the matter could be effectively dealt with, only

if the various rivers in the country are linked and are

nationalized. This has been a matter of public debate and -

discussion for a considerable time and still continues to be

so, without showing any reflection of ground reality.

9. The Ministry of Irrigation, along with the Central

Water Commission, had formulated in the year 1980 a

National Perspective Plan (NPP) for optimum utilization of

water resources in the country which envisaged inter-basin

transfer of water from water-surplus to water-deficit areas.

Apart from diverting water from rivers which are surplus, to

deficit areas, the river linking plan in its ultimate stage of

development will also enable flood moderation. It was

comprised of two components: Peninsular Rivers

Development and Himalayan Rivers Development. The first

8

involved major inter-linking of the river systems and the

latter envisaged the construction of storage reservoirs on

the principal tributaries of rivers Ganga and Brahmaputra

in India, Bhutan and Nepal. This was to help transfer

surplus flows of the eastern tributaries of the Ganga to the

West, apart from linking the main Brahmaputra and its

tributaries with the Ganga and Mahanadi rivers. The

scheme is divided into four major parts:

i)-

ii)Interlinking of Mahanadi-Godavari-Krishna-

Cauvery rivers and building storages at

potential sites in these basins.

iii)Interlinking of West flowing rivers north of

Bombay and south of Tapi.

iv)Interlinking of rivers Ken & Chambal.

v)Diversion of other west flowing rivers from

Kerala.

9

10. The petitioners have also made several suggestions

which have been appreciated by the competent authorities

on consideration. It is emphasized that the cost is negligible

when compared to the potential benefits which may be

bestowed on the nation. The petitioners rely upon Article

262 of the Constitution, read along with Entry 17, List II

and Entry 56 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the

Constitution to substantiate their submissions. Finally, the

petitioners submit that the preservation of water resources

is a part of the right to life and livelihood, enshrined in

Article 21 of the Constitution and that the Central

Government should take immediate and urgent steps to

nationalize the rivers, so that equitable and proper -

distribution of water can be ensured for the betterment of

the population. According to them, the Central Government

should also adopt all necessary measures, both scientifically

and naturally, to increase the usable water resources and to

preserve whatever resources the Union of India has already

been naturally gifted with.

10

11. As a result and because of the inaction on the part

of the Central Government and the State Governments, it is

submitted that grant of the reliefs as prayed for in the writ

petition would be in consonance with the constitutional

spirit and in the larger public interest.

12. The learned Amicus Curiae, who had been pursuing

this public cause for a number of years, in furtherance to

the request of this Court, has also submitted a detailed note

with regard to the background and summary of the

proceedings in these petitions.

13. As per the learned Amicus Curiae, on 14

th

August,

2002, the then President of India, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, in

his address to the nation on the eve of Independence Day, -

had observed that the need of the hour was the creation of a

Water Mission which, inter alia, would look into the

question of networking of rivers with a view to deal with the

paradoxical situation of floods in one part of the country

and drought in the other. Based on this and as afore-

recorded, a notice was issued, on 16

th

September, 2002, to

11

the States and the Attorney General for India as

respondents. In response to the said notice, none of the

States or Union Territories, except the State of Tamil Nadu,

had filed affidavits supporting/opposing the prayers made

in the writ petition. The time for filing of affidavits was again

extended up to 30

th

September, 2002, but no further

affidavits were received by that time.

14. The learned then Attorney General for India, on

behalf of the Union of India, stated that the Government

had accepted the concept of interlinking of rivers and a High

Powered Task Force would be formed. Therefore, this

Court, vide Order dated 31

st

October, 2002, recorded that

there is in-principle consensus amongst all States to go

ahead with the project of interlinking of rivers.

-

15. Vide Order dated 30

th

August, 2004, it was noticed

by this Court that, though there had been a change in the

Government, the then Solicitor General, appearing for the

12

Government, informed this Court that a decision had been

taken, in principle, to continue with interlinking of rivers.

16. A high level Task Force was set up. However, vide

order dated 5

th

May, 2003, this Court observed that inputs

from other experts, in many fields, were necessary and that

the Task Force was to give due consideration to such

inputs. Feasibility Reports (hereafter, ‘FR’) were prepared

for the intended links. Subsequently, vide its order dated

8

th

April, 2005, this Court made it absolutely clear that the

orders of the Court in these respects have to be complied

with in letter and spirit. The FR of all links were to be put

on the website after their completion. This Court had also

made observations that the prior consent of any State

Government was not necessary for placing the FRs on the

website and directed them to be so placed. With great

persuasion and efforts, the FRs of 16 links had been placed

on the website. At the request of the Amicus, the website -

was ordered to be made interactive so that people could

submit their response thereto.

13

17. The status report filed on behalf of the Government

of India also showed that a committee of environmentalists,

social activists and other experts would be constituted to be

involved in the consultative process of formulation and

execution of the entire project.

18. The status reports filed, from time to time, have

been considered by this Court.

19. Now, we may deal with the response of various

States, as they appear from the record before us. The

response affidavits have been filed on behalf of ten States.

However, the remaining States have not responded, despite

the grant of repeated opportunities to do so. While the

States of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu have

supported the concept of inter-linking of rivers, the State of

Madhya Pradesh had stated that networking of rivers is a

subject falling under the jurisdiction of the Central

Government and the Central Government should consider

the matter. The -

14

States of Karnataka, Bihar, Punjab, Assam and Sikkim have

given their approval to the concept in-principle, but with

definite reservations, i.e., a kind of qualified approval,

arguing that the matters with regard to the environmental

and financial implications, socio-economic and international

aspects, such as inter-basin water transfer, need to be

properly examined at the appropriate levels of the

Government. For example, all the rivers in Bihar originate

from Nepal and it may be necessary or desirable to take

consent of neighbouring countries, is a matter which would

require consideration of the appropriate authority in the

Central Government. According to the State of Punjab,

inter-linking of rivers should be started only from water-

surplus States to States facing water deficit. The States of

Assam, Sikkim and Kerala had raised their protests on the

grounds that they should have exclusive right to use their

water resources and that such transfer should not affect

any rights of these States. The State of Sikkim was

concerned with particular reference to tapping of the hydro

-

15

power potential in the State and the State of Kerala entirely

objected to long distance, inter-basin, water transfer.

20. The Union of India filed three different affidavits

dated 25

th

October, 2002, 5

th

May, 2003 and 24

th

December,

2003. From these affidavits, the stand of the Union of India

appears to be that networking of rivers had been considered

with great seriousness even after the 1972 Rao Committee

Report. Surveys and studies were underway. The 1980

National Perspective Plan of the erstwhile Ministry of

Irrigation, presently the Ministry for Water Resources,

envisaged inter-basin transfer from water-surplus to deficit

areas. It would have direct benefits, like the irrigation of 35

million hectares (Mha), full exploitation of existing irrigation

projects of 140 Mha, power generation of 34 million Kilowatt

(KW); besides the indirect benefits like flood control,

navigation, water supply, fisheries, pollution control,

recreation facilities, employment generation, infrastructure

and socio-economic development etc. With regard to the

approvals required, it is submitted that the Ministry of

Environment and Forests, Union of India had given some -

16

clearances, while refusing the same in other cases. The

consent of some of the States had not been received. The

expected financial implication as far back as in 2002 was

Rs.5,60,000 crores.

21. However, the Union of India has submitted that

there is no necessity for formation of a high-powered

committee as prayed for in the petitions. The high-level

task force is to be set up for considering the modalities of

state-wise consensus. The NWDA was set up as

autonomous registered society under the aegis of Ministry of

Water Resources, in New Delhi in 1992, for the purposes of

preparation of FRs, conduct of water-balance and other

scientific studies, etc. for Peninsular Region rivers (and for

Himalayan Region rivers also, since 1990) and is headed by

the Union Minister of Water Resources. The Chief Ministers

and/or the Ministers and the Secretaries as their nominees

for Water Resources/Irrigation of the State governments are

its members. The pre-feasibility reports of all 30 identified

links had been completed by the NWDA.

17

-

22. The Union of India and some states have shown

their concerns and their apprehensions about these

projects, including questioning the reliability of water

supply from distant sources, distribution of water given the

existing tribunal awards and the continued availability of

existing water surpluses.

23. In another affidavit, the Union of India referred to

the Terms of Reference to the Task Force and the

appointment of its Members. Action Plan I was prepared,

which was expected to be implemented by 2016. Out of the

independent links to be pursued for discussion, the first

were the links in the States of Gujarat, Maharashtra,

Chattisgarh; secondly, the States of Karnataka, Madhya

Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan were to be included

in discussions and thirdly, the States of Andhra Pradesh,

Tamil Nadu and Orissa were to be invited for discussion.

The Detailed Project Reports (hereafter, ‘DPR’) were expected

to be completed by December, 2006. However, from the

18

record, it appears that these DPRs have not been completed

even till today. The scheme of inter-linking of -

rivers/preparation of DPRs is stated to be under review by

different groups and authorities.

24. The Union of India also intended that these project

reports should encompass water sector schemes, rainwater

harvesting schemes etc., as these cannot be implemented

independent of the inter-linking scheme. The last of the

affidavits filed on behalf of the Union of India was in

December, 2003. This affidavit gives details of the States,

with which a dialogue was to be held as also the details of

constitution of sub-committees. The Terms of Reference of

the Task Force included the approval of all links. With the

intention to arrive at a general consensus, before entering

into agreements, the Union of India has discussed details

with Maharashtra and Gujarat and preliminary discussion

has taken place with the States of Andhra Pradesh,

Chattisgarh, Karnataka, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and

Pondicherry. According to the Union of India, invoking the

19

matter internationally, at this stage, was not advisable as

the matter was premature. The NWDA was to begin the DPR

for the first link, i.e., the Ken-Betwa project, which itself -

was expected to take 30 months time. In this, the DPR has

now been prepared; however, the implementation is yet to

begin. We must notice that in all other links even the DPRs

are not ready, as of now. The draft Memorandum of

Understanding (hereafter, ‘MoU’) had been circulated for

conduct of DPR of three more Peninsular links. The

Standing Committee of the Parliament on Water Resources,

(hereafter, ‘the Standing Committee’), in its report for the

year 2004-05 has commented that for the purpose of

preparation of DPRs for the Ken-Betwa link and the Parbati-

Kalisindh-Chambal link projects, a sum of Rs.14 crores had

been earmarked, out of the total Rs.35 crores allocated for

NWDA. However, the Standing Committee had been

constrained to observe that, though the FR of the Ken-

Betwa link was completed in November, 1996, the project

was still at a nascent stage. At the time of the report in

2004-05, the basic MoU between the Governments of Uttar

20

Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, for preparation of DPR, still

remained to be signed, on the ground that the State of Uttar

Pradesh required more water to be allocated to it. They -

further observed that, if the Ministry of Water Resources,

Government of India had set a time frame for finalization of

issues like this, the precious time of eight years would not

have been lost. The matter still rests at that stage. Today,

though DPR has been prepared for this link alone, no link

project has reached the implementation stage.

25. The report of the Standing Committee which, inter

alia, had examined the river inter-linking proposal was

presented to the Parliament of India on 23

rd

August, 2004. It

was strongly recommended that the Government should

take firm steps and fix a definite time frame to lay down the

guidelines for completion of FRs, preparation of DPRs and

completion of projects so that they may be completed and

the benefits accrued within reasonable time and costs. It

was the opinion of the Standing Committee that the inter-

linking of Himalayan and Southern region rivers, if done

21

within a definite schedule, would save the nation from the

devastating ravages of chronic droughts and floods. The

recommendations of the Standing Committee deal primarily

with two kinds of States; the States having water shortage -

and the States having surplus water. Still, there would be a

third category of States, which would be comprised of those

States which have just sufficient water and therefore, do not

fall in either the flood-affected or the drought-affected

categories of States. The role of such States may not be

very project-related; but, their consent/concurrence is

needed for complete implementation of the programme.

Their role is relevant as some canal projects, linking

different rivers, may pass through such States. But as

already noticed, except one, no other DPR has so far been

finalized and in fact, none put into implementation. Thus,

this question would remain open and has to be examined at

the appropriate stage by the competent forum.

Projection of Status Reports : -

22

26. Different Status Reports have been filed in this

case. The last of the Status Reports have been filed by the

Union of India on 18

th

March, 2011. It has been pointed out

that the NWDA, which was to complete the task relating to

preparation of FRs and DPRs of link projects, has completed

-

208 preliminary water-balance study of basins, sub-basins

and diversion points, 74 toposheets and storage capacity

studies of reservoirs, 37 toposheet studies of link

alignments and 32 pre-feasibility reports of links, towards

the implementation of inter-linking of rivers in the country.

Based on these studies, this agency identified 30 links (16

under the peninsular river development component and 14

under the Himalayan river development component) for

preparation of FRs. The process of consensus building is

on-going, in regard to the feasibility of implementing other

interlinking projects. These reports have shown that a

significant effort and attempts have been made and the

unquestionable benefits that would accrue on the

23

implementation of the interlinking projects will be to benefit

the country at large. One aspect that needs to be noticed is

that, till today, no minor or major project has been actually

implemented at the ground level despite the fact that this

case has been pending before this Court for more than ten

years. Only the DPR of the Ken-Betwa link has been

prepared and its implementation is awaiting the approval of

-

the State Governments as well as the allocation of funds,

even to begin the work. This does not speak well of the

desire on the part of any of the concerned Governments to

implement these projects, despite the fact that there is

unanimity of views among all that this project is in the

national interest.

27. The Committee of Environmentalists, Social

Scientists and other Experts on inter-linking of rivers, had

met after the submission of the Status Report dated 5

th

March, 2010. They discussed various aspects of different

projects. In the Himalayan region, FRs of two remaining

24

links were completed, i.e., the Sarda-Yamuna link and

Ghagra-Yamuna Link. The field survey and investigation for

Sone Dam on the southern tributaries of the Ganga link,

was still in progress. The Ministry of Environment and

Forests had refused permission for survey and investigation

of the Manas-Sankosh-Tista-Ganga link, but the toposheet

study for the alternative Jogigopa-Tista-Farakka link has

been completed. In the Peninsular region, the projects

relating to Bedti-Varada and Netravati-Hemavati-Tapi are

awaiting -

Karnataka Government’s consent. In Netravati-Hemvati-

Tapi link, the Karnataka Government has refused to

consent even to the preparation of FR until decision of

related cases, pending in the Courts.

28. In the Dhadun dam, relating to the Ken-Betwa link,

two power houses and a link canal will be taken up in Phase

I and the Betwa basin will be completed in Phase-II. Upper

Betwa Sub-Basin will receive priority completion and minor

projects are proposed to be completed first. Phase-II will be

25

commenced after survey and investigation. However, this

project is still at the survey and planning stage and even

comprehensive clearances, from the Uttar Pradesh

Government, have not been received. The State of Rajasthan

refuses to consider the MoU for another priority link,

Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal, until the updation of its

hydrology project.

29. Similarly, there are other projects where public

hindrances are caused against carrying out of survey and

investigation. In the Par-Tapi-Narmada and Damanganga--

Pinjal links, residents have shown concern about the extent

of land to be submerged on the construction of the proposed

dam. In response, the State Governments of Gujarat and

Maharashtra have set up Committees to take up the

matters with the panchayats and to commence the projects.

30. The NWDA had also, in the course of framing of its

policies, proposed intra-state links. Except for six States

and four Union Territories, all other States and Union

Territories have interest in these intra-State links. There

26

are eight inter-linking projects which are under review by

different State authorities. However, the details of the

divergence between the State Governments are not clearly

spelt out, even as of now.

31. An additional study was undertaken by the National

Council for Applied Economic Research (hereafter, ‘NCAER’)

and the revised final report, published in April 2008,

assessed the economic impact of the rivers interlinking

program and suggested an investment roll out plan, i.e., a

practical implementation schedule, for the same. A copy of

-

this report was submitted in the year 2011, before this

Court.

32. As already noticed, the Task Force was constituted

by the Central Government for interlinking of river projects

in December 2002. It submitted its Action Plans I and II for

implementation of the project and also finalized the terms of

reference for the purposes of the DPRs. Action Plan I,

27

submitted in April 2003, envisages completion of 30 FRs by

the authorities by December 2005.

33. Action Plan II, submitted in April 2004, mainly

envisaged the appraisal of individual projects, in respect of

their economic viability, socio-economic and environmental

impacts, preparation of resettlement plans and reaching

speedy consensus among States. The reports have been

submitted to the Central Government and are under

consideration. With this completion of work, the Task Force

had completed its object and stood dissolved. After winding

up of the Task Force, a Special Cell on interlinking of rivers

was created under the Ministry of Water Resources. -

However, what happened to the two Action Plan reports

submitted by the Task Force is a matter left to the

imagination of anyone.

34. From the above, it is not difficult to visualize the

difficulties in preparation, execution, financing and

consensus building, still, it is the need of the hour to carry

28

out these projects more effectively and with greater

sensitivity.

Economic Aspect :

35. As per the report of the Standing Committee for the

year 2004-05, which was presented to the Parliament of

India, the planned budgetary allocation was made under

NWDA as follows :

36. Actual allocation for 2002-03 was Rs.15.30 crores,

the budget estimate for 2003-04 was 20 crores, the revised

estimate for the same year was Rs.21.95 crores and for

2004-05, the budget estimate was Rs.35 crores.

-

37. The Amicus Curiae, in his report, has noted that the

new aggregated cost of the entire program varies between

Rs. 4,44,331.20 crores, at 2003-04 prices, and

Rs.4,34,657.13 crores, at 2003-04 prices, depending on the

implementation of the proposed Manas-Sankosh-Tista-

Ganga link or the Jogigopa-Tista-Farakka link respectively.

29

38. As already noticed, the NCAER had been assigned

the work of assessing the economic impact of river

interlinking programmes, which in turn, suggested an

investment roll-out plan for the same. The report of the

NCAER was prepared in April, 2008. This report considers

various financial aspects and the impact of various river

interlinking projects in India. They point out that after

independence, irrigation was viewed as infrastructure for

agricultural development rather than as a commercial

enterprise. In 1983, the Nitin Desai Committee forwarded

the idea of Internal Rate of Return (hereinafter referred to as

‘IRR’), suggesting that projects should normally earn a

minimum IRR of 9 per cent. However, for drought-prone

and hilly areas and in areas with only 75 per cent of

dependable flows -

in the basin, a lower IRR of 7 per cent was recommended.

Successive Finance Commissions also stressed on recovery

of a certain percentage of the capital investment apart from

working expenses. The Eleventh Finance Commission has

recognized that this would have to be done in a gradual

30

manner. Receipts should cover not only maintenance

expenditure but also leave some surplus as return on the

capital invested.

39. This NCAER report, with some significance, noticed

that until 2003-04, it was only in four years that the

economy grew at more than 8 per cent per annum. Each of

these years coincided with very high rate of growth in the

agricultural sector. In contrast, industry and services

sectors have, at best, pulled up the Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) growth to 7.3 per cent per annum when there was no

significant contribution from the agricultural sector. The

report clearly opines that interlinking of river projects will

prove fruitful for the nation as a whole and would serve a

greater purpose by allowing higher returns from the

agricultural sector for the benefit of the entire economy. -

This would also result in providing of varied benefits like

control of floods, providing water to drought-prone States,

providing water to a larger part of agricultural land and

even power generation. Besides annuring to the benefit of

31

the country, it will also help the countries like Nepal etc.,

thus uplifting India’s international role. Importantly, they

also point out to a very important facet of interlinking of

rivers, i.e., it may result in reduction of some diseases due

to the supply of safe drinking water and thus serve a greater

purpose for humanity.

40. The Bhakra dam has also been cited as an example

in this report as having enabled the States of Punjab and

Haryana to register faster growth as compared to the rest of

the country. This project provided an additional irrigated

area to the extent of 6.8 million hectares over 35 years.

Increased irrigation intensity led to increased usage of High

Yielding Variety (HYV) seeds which at present constitute

more than 90 per cent of the area under wheat and 80 per

cent of area under paddy cultivation. The region uses some

of the most advanced agricultural technologies in India. -

NCAER, while depicting the poverty ratio vis-à-vis these

States and the other States all over India, has provided the

following tables:

32

States Rural Urban Al

l

Ar

ea

s

1973-741999-001973-741999-001973-741999-

00

Punjab28.21 6.35 27.96 5.75 28.15 6.16

Haryana34.23 8.27 40.18 10.00 35.36 8.74

All India56.44 27.09 49.01 23.62 54.88 26.10

41. Thus, they conclude that the Bhakra Dam was

instrumental in helping India achieve food security, in

reducing volatility of food grain prices and declining the

incidence of poverty in those regions.

42. Besides pointing out the benefits of Bhakra Dam,

the NCAER Report also states that the link canals have both

short and long term impacts on the economy. Short term

impact of link canals is in the form of increased employment

-

33

opportunities and the growth of the services sector. In the

medium to long term, the major impact of link canals is

through increased and assured irrigation. Although the

major and direct gainers from the interlinking of rivers (ILR)

programme will be agriculture and agriculture-dependant

households, the entire economy will benefit because of

increased agricultural production and other benefits.

43. The Report of the NCAER has pointed out various

benefits of rivers interlinking programme at the State and

National levels. However, when coming to the financial

aspect of the programme, two concepts are of great

relevance: firstly, the investment strain and secondly, the

scope of financial investment and its recoupment.

Primarily, it is clear from the records before us that this is a

programme/project on which the nation and the States

should have a rational but liberal approach for financial

investment. Referring to the financial strain, the NCAER

Report projects two sets of investment rollout plan. At the

start of the programme, investment would be small, but

34

would increase gradually peaking in the year 2011-2012. It

-

will then start falling. Investment rollout from the year

2008-2009 to 2014-2015 will have considerable strain on

the Central Government finances, especially after the

passage of Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management

Rules (FRBMR). The Government is now committed to

reducing fiscal deficit by 0.3 percentage points of GDP every

year and was to reduce the fiscal deficit down to 3 per cent

of GDP by the fiscal year 2007-2008. The FRBMR also put

a restriction on Government borrowings. In each

subsequent financial year, the limit on borrowings of 9 per

cent of GDP was to progressively reduced by at least 1

percentage point of GDP, a commitment which is to be

adhered to by all Governments. The investment plan

prepared by the NCAER was intended to help in clearing

doubts in the minds of the people and opponents of the

programme that investment is not going to take place in a

single or couple of years, but over a period of at least ten

years. Since the impact analysis undertaken by the

35

NCAER assumes that the Interlinking of Rivers (ILR)

programme is entirely financed by the Central Government,

-

a longer rollout plan would also help in reducing the impact

on public finances.

44. The NCAER has also suggested changes which are

necessary for the effective implementation of the river

networking programme. Inter alia, it includes the pricing of

irrigation benefits and improvement in the quality of service.

It will be useful to notice at this stage, these suggested

changes termed as ‘Changes necessary’ which are as under:

“A revision of water rates is necessary in

the interest of efficiency. However, it

should go hand in hand with

improvement in the quality of service

(Government of India 1992). Specific

recommendations were made by the

Committee on Pricing of Irrigation Water

(Government of India, 1992) with regards

to pricing:

1.Water rates are a form

of user charges, and

not a tax. Users of

public irrigation must

36

meet the cost of the

irrigation service.

2.As irrigation is one of

the key inputs similar

to seeds and fertilizer,

its pricing should be

addressed in the first

step.

3.Under-pricing of

irrigation is mainly

responsible for the -

4.deteriorating quality of

irrigation services. A

revision of water rates

is necessary in the

interest of efficiency.

However, it should go

hand in hand with

improvement in the

quality of service.

5.Rates for non-

agricultural users

(domestic and

industrial) should also

be revised so that full

cost is recovered.

6.Rates should be based

on O&M norms and

capital charges

(interest and

depreciation).

37

7.Averaging of rates by

region and/or

categories of projects

is desirable.

Categorisation could

be:

major and medium storage

system,

major and medium projects

based exclusively on

barrages/diversion works,

minor surface irrigation

works,

lift irrigation canals, and

lift irrigation from

groundwater.

8.Distinction of rates in

terms of tail and head

reaches of a system,

soil quality, and other

criteria for rate

determination should

be approached with

caution due to

complexities involved

with it.

9.-

10.Water rates should be

applied on two-part

tariff. All lands in

38

command area should

pay a flat annual fee

on a per hectare basis

for membership of the

system and a variable

fee linked to the actual

extent of service

(volume or area) used

by each member.

11.The move to full-

fledged volumetric

pricing cannot be

introduced

immediately. The

proposed

rationalization of water

pricing will have to be

accomplished in three

phases.

12.In the first phase,

rationalization and

simplification of the

existing system of

assessment (based on

crop-wise irrigated

area on an individual

basis) to a system of

season-specific areas

rates should be taken

up. The level of cost

recovery to be aimed

during the first phase

39

should at least cover

O&M costs and 1 per

cent interest on capital

employed. The

irrigated area under a

crop which spreads

over to more than one

season should be

charged at the rates

applicable to different

seasons. However, in

each season,

distinction should be

made -

13.between paddy,

sugarcane, and

perennial crops.

14.In the second phase,

the aim should be on

volumetric measure for

irrigation water

charging.

15.In third phase, the

focus should be on

people participation

for improving water

use and, thus,

productivity.

The recommendations of the Committee

on Pricing of Irrigation (also known as the

Vaidynathan Committee Report) were

further studied by the Group of Officers

formed by the Planning Commission in

40

October, 1992. It recommended that the

irrigation water rates should cover the full

annual O & M cost in phases in the next

five years. These recommendations and

the Vaidyanathan Committee Report

were, in February 1995, sent to all the

States/union territories that had started

taking action with several states revising

water rates upwards.”

To sum up the short comings and their analysis,

the report states as under :

“One shortcoming of the above analysis is

that it has not considered the issue of

cost of resettlement of displaced people

due to ILR Project. A draft National

Rehabilitation Policy was prepared with

the objective of minimizing development

induced displacement of people by -

promoting non-displacing or least

displacing alternatives for meeting

development objectives. The draft policy

is yet to be finalized by the National

Advisory Council (NAC). The NAC intends

to finalise a rehabilitation package that

includes, inter alia, providing land for all

agricultural families, implementing

special employment guarantee

programmes, providing homesteads and

dwelling houses, bearing transportation

cost, providing training and other support

services, instituting a rehabilitation grant

in order to compensate loss of

income/livelihood. The ILR project has to

consider displacement costs on the basis

of norms stipulated in the national

41

Rehabilitation Policy as and when it gets

finalized.”

45. Besides making the above observations and

recommendations, the NCAER also suggests that after

completion of the linking of rivers programme, the different

river links should be maintained by separate river basin

organizations, which would all be functioning under the

direct control of the Central Water Commission or such

other appropriate central body.

46. In the summing up of its Report, the NCAER has

stated that water is essential for production of food, -

economic growth, health and support to environment. Its

main contribution to economic well-being is through its use

of agriculture to improve food security. Water is essential to

increase agricultural productivity under modern technology.

Nearly 64 per cent of the population in rural area and 4 per

cent in urban area depends on agriculture as their principal

source of income. The analysis carried out in the State

shows that the ILR programme has the potential to increase

the growth rate of agriculture, which declined from 4.4 per

42

cent in 1980s to 3.0 per cent in 1990s and which is still

susceptible to the vagaries of rainfall. In order to put our

economy on the high growth path and improve the quality

for life of people in the rural areas, a mixed policy of both

increased availability of irrigation and increasing non-farm

activity is required.

Principles Applied:

47. From the above narrated facts, stated

recommendations and principles, it is clear that primarily

there is unanimity between all concerned authorities -

including the Centre and a majority of the State

Governments, with the exception of one or two, that

implementation of river linking will be very beneficial. In

fact, the expert opinions convincingly dispel all other

impressions. There shall be greater growth in agricultural

and allied sectors, prosperity and stimulus to the economy

potentially causing increase in per capita income, in

addition to the short and long term benefits likely to accrue

by such implementation. These would accrue if the expert

43

recommendations are implemented properly and within a

timeframe. Then there shall be hardly any financial strain

on the economy. On the contrary, such implementation

would help advancement of India’s GDP and bring greater

wealth and prosperity to the nation as a whole. Besides

actual benefits accruing to the common man, the

Governments also benefit from the definite possibility of

saving the States from drought on the one hand and floods

on the other. This project, when it becomes a reality, will

provide immeasurable benefits. We see no reason as to why

the Governments should not take appropriate and timely -

interest in the execution of this project, particularly when,

in the various affidavits filed by the Central and the State

Governments, it has been affirmed that the governments are

very keen to implement this project with great sincerity and

effectiveness.

48. The States of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu have

fully supported the concept. Madhya Pradesh has also

supported the Scheme, but believes that it must be

44

implemented by the Central Government. The States of

Karnataka, Bihar, Punjab and Sikkim have given some

qualified approvals. Their main concern is, with regard to

inter basin transfer, which must involve quid pro quo, as

with any other resources inter-linking must be from water

surplus to water deficit States and in regard to

environmental and financial implications. Some of the

other States are not connected with these projects as they

have no participation in inter-linking of rivers. The State of

Kerala has protested to some extent, to the long distance

inter basin water transfer on the basis that the State needs

-

water to supply their intricate network of natural and man-

made channels.

49. It is also the case of the State of Kerala that their

rivers are monsoon-fed and not perennial in nature,

therefore, Kerala experiences severe water scarcity during

summer or off-monsoon months.

45

50. The stand taken by the respective States, as noticed

above, shows that, by and large, there is unanimity in

accepting interlinking of rivers but the reservations of these

States can also not be ignored, being relatable to their

particular economic, geographical and socio-economic

needs. These are matters which squarely fall within the

domain of general consensus and thus, require a framework

to be formulated by the competent Government or the

Legislature, as the case may be, prior to its execution.

51. The National Commission for Review of the Working

of the Constitution (NCRWC) 2002 in its Report also dealt

with another important facet of river interlinking i.e. sharing

of river waters. Explaining the doctrines of river sharing, it

-

described Doctrine of Riparian Rights, Doctrine of Prior

Appropriation, Territorial Integrity Theory, Doctrine of

Territorial Sovereignty, English Common Law Principle of

Riparian Right, Doctrine of Community Interest, Doctrine of

Equitable Apportionment. It also explained that when

46

determining what a reasonable and equitable share is, the

factors which should be taken into consideration. In that

behalf, it specifically referred to agreements, judicial

decisions, awards and customs that already are in place.

Furthermore, relative economic and social needs of

interested states, volume of stream and its uses, land not

watered were other relevant considerations. Thus, it will be

for the expert bodies alone to examine on such issues and

their impact on the project.

52. Be that as it may, we have no hesitation in

observing that the national interest must take precedence

over the interest of the individual States. The State

Governments are expected to view national problems with a

greater objectivity, rationality and spirit of service to the

nation and -

ill-founded objections may result in greater harm, not only

to the neighbouring States but also to the nation at large.

47

53. Now, we may refer to certain constitutional

provisions which have bearing on the matters in issue

before us. Under the constitutional scheme, there is a

clear demarcation of fields of operation and jurisdiction

between the Legislature, Judiciary and the Executive. The

Legislature may save unto itself the power to make certain

specific legislations not only governing a field of its

legislative competence as provided in the Seventh Schedule

of the Constitution, but also regarding a particular dispute

referable to one of the Articles itself. Article 262 of the

Constitution is one of such powers. Under this Article, the

Parliament, by law, can provide for the adjudication of any

dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution

and control of water of any inter-state river or river valley.

54. Article 262(2) of the Constitution opens with a non-

obstante expression, that ‘notwithstanding anything

contained in the Constitution, Parliament may by law -

provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other Court

shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any dispute or

complaint as referred to in Article 262(1)’. In other words,

48

the Parliament can reserve to itself, the power to oust the

jurisdiction of the courts, including the highest Court of the

land, in relation to a water dispute as stated under this

Article. The jurisdiction of the Court will be ousted only

with regard to the adjudication of the dispute and not all

matters incidental thereto. For example, the Supreme

Court can certainly direct the Central Government to fulfill

its statutory obligation under Section 4 of the Act, which is

mandatory, without deciding any water dispute between the

States. [See : Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana

Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappu Sangam

v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 1316].

55. One of the possible views taken with regard to

Article 262 is that the use of expression ‘may’ in the

Constitution does not indicate a clear legislative intent,

thus, it may be possible that Section 11 of the Act could

refer only to such disputes as are already referred to a

-

49

Tribunal and which are outside the purview of the courts.

Once a specific adjudicatory mechanism is created, that

machinery comes into operation with the creation of the

Tribunal and probably, then alone will the Court’s

jurisdiction be ousted.

56. The Seventh Schedule to the Constitution spells out

different fields of legislation under the Union List (List I),

State List (List II) and Concurrent List (List III). Entry 56 of

List I empowers the Union Parliament to enact laws in

relation to the regulation and development of inter-state

rivers and river valleys, to the extent that such regulation

and development is declared by the Parliament, by law, to

be expedient in the public interest. Entry 57 deals with

fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters. Entry 97 is

a residual entry, which confers those legislative fields upon

the Union Parliament which are not specifically provided for

under List II and/or List III. Entry 17 relates to water,

that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and canals,

drainage and embankments, water storage and water

power, subject to the provisions of Entry 56 of List I. -

50

Agriculture is again a State subject. The Concurrent List

(List III) does not contain any entry in regard to water and

agriculture, as such.

57. Entry 42 of List III is the law relating to acquisition

and requisition of property by the Union and the State

Parliaments. The result is that, in relation to acquisition,

the Centre and the State, both, have power to legislate.

Entry 20 of List III deals with economic and social planning.

Thus, with the aid of the residual powers under Entry 97,

List I, the Union Parliament gets a very wide field of

legislation, relatable to various subjects.

58. The River Boards Act, 1956 was enacted by the

Parliament under Entry 56 of List I. The Inter-State Water

Disputes Act was also enacted with reference to the same

Entry. Whereas the mandate of the latter is to provide a

machinery for the settlement of disputes, the former is an

Act to establish Boards for the regulation and development

of inter-State river basins, through advice and coordination,

-

51

and thereby to reduce the friction amongst the concerned

States.

59. It is this kind of coordination which is required to

be generated at all levels to implement the inter-linking of

rivers program, as proposed. Huge amounts of public

money have been spent, at the planning stage itself and it

will be travesty of good governance and the epitome of harm

to public interest, if these projects are not carried forward

with a sense of sincerity and a desire for its completion.

60. In a more recent judgment of this Court in the case

of State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

[(2000) 9 SCC 572], a Constitution Bench of this Court took

the view that in Section 11 of the Act, the expression ‘use,

distribution and control of water in any river’ are the key

words in determination of the scope of power conferred on a

Tribunal constituted under Section 3 of the Act. If a matter

fell outside the scope of these three crucial words, the power

of Section 11 in ousting the jurisdiction of the courts in

respect of any water dispute, which is otherwise to be -

52

referred to Tribunal, would not have any manner of

application. The test of maintainability of a legal action

initiated by a State in a Court would thus be, whether the

issues raised therein are referable to a Tribunal for

adjudication of the manner of use, distribution and control

of water.

61. Further, this Court while declining to issue a

mandamus directing the States of Karnataka, Andhra

Pradesh and Maharashtra to constitute a common Tribunal,

held:

“168. ……It is settled law that such a

direction cannot possibly be granted so

as to compel an authority to exercise a

power which has a substantial element of

discretion. In any event the mandamus to

exercise a power which is legislative in

character cannot be issued and I am in

full agreement with the submission of Mr.

Solicitor General on this score as well. At

best it would only be an issue of good

governance but that by itself would not

mean and imply that the Union

Government has executive power even to

force a settlement upon the State.”

-

53

62. The above stated principles clearly show that a

greater element of mutuality and consensus needs to be

built between the States and the Centre on the one hand,

and the States inter se on the other. It will be very difficult

for the Courts to undertake such an exercise within the

limited scope of its power of judicial review and even on the

basis of expanded principles of Public Interest Litigation. A

Public Interest Litigation before this Court has to fall within

the contours of constitutional law, as no jurisdiction is

wider than this Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under

Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court can hardly take

unto itself tasks of making of a policy decision or planning

for the country or determining economic factors or other

crucial aspects like need for acquisition and construction of

river linking channels under that program. The Court is not

equipped to take such expert decisions and they essentially

should be left for the Central Government and the

concerned State. Such an attempt by the Court may

amount to the Court sitting in judgment over the opinions of

the experts in the respective fields, without any tools and -

54

expertise at its disposal. The requirements in the present

case have different dimensions. The planning, acquisition,

financing, pricing, civil construction, environmental issues

involved are policy decisions affecting the legislative

competence and would squarely fall in the domain of the

Government of States and Centre. We certainly should not

be understood to even imply that the proposed projects of

inter-linking of rivers should not be completed.

63. We would recommend, with all the judicial authority

at our command, that these projects are in the national

interest, as is the unanimous view of all experts, most State

Governments and particularly, the Central Government.

But this Court may not be a very appropriate forum for

planning and implementation of such a programme having

wide national dimensions and ramifications. It will not only

be desirable, but also inevitable that an appropriate body

should be created to plan, construct and implement this

inter linking of rivers program for the benefit of the nation

as a whole.

55

-

64. Realizing our limitations, we would finally dispose of

this Public Interest Litigation with the following directions:-

(I)We direct the Union of India and particularly the

Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, to

forthwith constitute a Committee to be called a ‘Special

Committee for Inter-linking of Rivers’ (hereinafter

referred as ‘the Committee’) of which, the following

shall be the Members:-

(a) The Hon’ble Minister for Water Resources.

(b) Secretary, Ministry for Water Resources.

(c) Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests.

(d) Chairman, Central Water Commission.

(e) Member-Secretary, National Water Development

Authority.

(f) Four experts to be nominated, one each from the

following Ministries/bodies:

(i) One Expert from the Ministry of Water

Resources

(ii) One Expert from the Ministry of Finance

56

(iii) One Expert from the Planning Commission

-

(iv) One Expert from the Ministry of Environment

& Forests.

(g) Minister for Water and/or Irrigation from each of

the concurring States, with the Principal

Secretary of the concerned Department of the

same State.

(h) The Chief Secretary or his nominee not below the

rank of the Principal Secretary of the concerned

Department in case of any other State involved

directly or indirectly in the water linking river

project.

(i) Two social activists to be nominated by each of

the concerned Ministries.

(j) Mr. Ranjit Kumar (Amicus Curiae).

(II) The Committee shall meet, at least, once in two

months and shall maintain records of its discussion

and the Minutes.

57

(III) In the absence of any person from such meeting,

irrespective of his/her status, the meeting shall not be

adjourned. If the Hon’ble Minister for Water Resources

-

is not available, the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources,

Government of India, shall preside over the Meeting.

(IV) The Committee would be entitled to constitute such

sub-committees, as it may deem necessary for the

purposes of carrying on the objects of the Inter-Linking

of River Program, on such terms and conditions as it

may deem proper.

(V) The Committee shall submit a bi-annual report to the

Cabinet of the Government of India placing before it

the status-cum-progress report as well as all the

decisions required to be taken in relation to all matters

communicated therewith. The Cabinet shall take all

final and appropriate decisions, in the interest of the

countries as expeditiously as possible and preferably

within thirty days from the date the matters are first

placed before it for consideration.

58

(VI) All the reports of the expert bodies as well as the status

reports filed before this Court during the pendency of

this petition, shall be placed before the Committee for

-

its consideration. Upon due analysis of the Reports and

expert opinions, the Committee shall prepare its plans

for implementation of the project.

(VII) The plans so prepared shall have different phases,

directly relatable to the planning, implementation,

construction, execution and completion of the project.

(VIII) We are informed that large sums have been spent on

preparation of initial and detailed project reports of the

project ‘Ken-Betwa Project’. The DPR is now ready.

The States of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and

also the Central Government had already given their

approval and consent. The clarifications sought will be

discussed by the Committee. We would direct the

Committee to take up this project for implementation

at the first instance itself.

59

(IX)Keeping in view the expert reports, we have no

hesitation in observing and directing that time is a

very material factor in the effective execution of the

Interlinking of Rivers project. As pointed out in the

Report by NCAER and by the Standing Committee, the

-

delay has adversely affected the financial benefits that could

have accrued to the concerned parties and the people

at large and is in fact now putting a financial strain on

all concerned.

(X)It is directed that the Committee shall take firm steps

and fix a definite timeframe to lay down the guidelines

for completion of feasibility reports or other reports

and shall ensure the completion of projects so that the

benefits accrue within reasonable time and cost.

(XI)At the initial stages, this program may not involve

those States which have sufficient water and are not

substantially involved in any inter-linking of river

programme and the projects can be completed without

their effective participation.

60

(XII)However, the Committee may involve any State for

effective completion of the programme at any

subsequent stage.

(XIII)There are projects where the paper work has been

going for the last ten years and at substantial cost to

the public exchequer. Therefore, we direct the Central

-

and the State Governments to participate in the program

and render all financial, administrative and executive

help to complete these projects more effectively.

(XIV)It is evident from the record that the Reports

submitted by the Task Force have not been acted

upon. Thus, the entire effort put in by the Task Force

has practically been of no use to the concerned

governments, much less the public. The Task Force

has now been wound up. Let the reports of the Task

Force also be placed before the Committee which shall,

without fail, take due note of the suggestions made

therein and take decisions as to how the same are to

be implemented for the benefit of the public at large.

61

(XV)The Committee constituted under this order shall be

responsible for carrying out the inter-linking program.

Its decisions shall take precedence over all

administrative bodies created under the orders of this

Court or otherwise.

-

(XVI)We grant liberty to the learned Amicus Curiae to file

contempt petition in this Court, in the event of default

or non-compliance of the directions contained in this

order.

65. We would fail in our duty if we do not place on

record the appreciation for the valuable and able assistance

rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae and all other senior

counsel and assisting counsel appearing in the present PIL.

66. We not only express a pious hope of speedy

implementation but also do hereby issue a mandamus to

the Central and the State Governments concerned to comply

with the directions contained in this judgment effectively

and expeditiously and without default. This is a matter of

national benefit and progress. We see no reason why any

62

State should lag behind in contributing its bit to bring the

Inter-linking River Program to a success, thus saving the

people living in drought-prone zones from hunger and

people living in flood-prone areas from the destruction

caused by floods.

-

67. With the observations and directions recorded

supra, Writ Petition (Civil) No.512 of 2002, Writ Petition

(Civil) No.668 of 2002 and all the applications filed in both

these writ petitions are hereby finally disposed of with no

order as to costs.

.............................CJI.

[S.H. Kapadia]

…………………………… .,J.

[A.K. Patnaik]

…………………………….,J.

[Swatanter Kumar]

New Delhi;

February 27, 2012

63

64