Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2012 DIGILAW 912 (SC)

State of Goa v. State of Karnataka

2012-10-01

ANIL R.DAVE, R.M.LODHA

body2012
Judgment : The issue concerns residential accommodation to the Chairman and Members of the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) constituted by the Central Government under Section 4 of the Inter-States Water Disputes Act, 1956 (for short “1956 Act”). The Tribunal was constituted by the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India by Notification dated November 16, 2010. The Chairman of the Tribunal is a former Judge of this Court and the two members are former Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court. 2. We are informed by Mr. H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General that the Chairman of the Tribunal assumed office on November 1, 2011 and the two members joined on November 16, 2011 and December 1, 2011 respectively. However, the residential accommodation, to which they are entitled, under the Inter State Water Disputes Rules, 1959 (for short “1959 Rules”), as amended from time to time, has not been made available to them so far. 3. Mr. Raval submitted that he had taken up the matter with the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, but nothing concrete has fructified. 4. 1959 Rules have been made by the Government of India under Section 13 of the 1956 Act. Paragraph 2 of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, as amended, reads as under: “Where the Chairman or any Member of a Tribunal retires from service as a Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court, as the case may be, during the terms of office of such chairman or Member, he shall be provided with furnished Government accommodation, if available, without payment of rent and, in case no such accommodation is provided or he does not avail himself of the Government accommodation, he shall be paid every month such allowance as is admissible to the serving Judges of the Supreme Court or of a High Court as the case may be.” 5. A close look at the above Rule will show that the Chairman or Member of a Tribunal shall be provided with furnished Government accommodation subject to availability without payment of rent. A close look at the above Rule will show that the Chairman or Member of a Tribunal shall be provided with furnished Government accommodation subject to availability without payment of rent. The only exception to this provision is that if the Chairman or Member of the Tribunal does not intend to avail of the Government accommodation, in that case, he shall be paid such allowance every month as is admissible to the serving Judges of the Supreme Court or of a High Court, as the case may be. 6. Admittedly, the Chairman and the members of the Tribunal have not conveyed their intention to the Government not to avail of the Government accommodation. 7. We find that in the reply affidavit, filed by Shri Asit Chaturvedi, Deputy Commissioner (BM), Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, a stand has been set-up that the Directorate of Estates vide letter dated April 20, 2012, has stated that as per the present policy, Tribunals etc. are not eligible for allotment of general pool accommodation. A copy of the letter dated April 20, 2012, issued by the Directorate of Estates, has been annexed as Annexure A-5 with the reply affidavit. 8. It is pertinent to observe that Section 13 of 1956 Act empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the act. Sub-section (2) of Rule 13, inter alia, provides that Rules may provide for all or any other matter which has to be or may be prescribed. One of the purposes of 1956 Act is the constitution of Tribunal when any request is received from any State Government in respect of any water dispute under Section 3 and the Central Government is of the opinion that water dispute cannot be settled by negotiations. Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act provides for composition of Tribunal. According to this provision, the Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and two other members nominated in this behalf by the Chief Justice of India from among persons who at the time of such nomination are Judges of the Supreme Court or of a High Court. 9. This Court In re. Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal 1993 Suppl. According to this provision, the Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and two other members nominated in this behalf by the Chief Justice of India from among persons who at the time of such nomination are Judges of the Supreme Court or of a High Court. 9. This Court In re. Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 96 (II) has held that Water Dispute Tribunals constituted under Section 4 have the entire judicial power of the State including that of this Court to adjudicate upon original dispute or complaint with respect to the use; distribution or control of the water of, or in any inter-state river or river valleys. 10. The Tribunal has, accordingly, been vested with judicial power co-extensive with this Court. The 1959 Rules framed under Section 13 of 1956 Act (as amended from time to time) cannot be overridden by a general policy of the Central Government that the Tribunal etc. are not eligible for allotment of general pool accommodation. Nothing has been shown that 1959 Rules have been framed contrary to the Rules of Business. Rather, subjects allocated to Ministry of Water Resources under Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 (as amended from time to time) show that ‘Water Laws, Legislation’ are the subjects allocated to the Ministry of Water Resources. Framing of 1959 Rules and the amendments therein are, thus, within the competence of Ministry of Water Resources. The Chairman and the Members of the Tribunal, at the time of their nomination, were sitting Judges of this Court and High Courts respectively. 11. We are amazed that in the garb of some policy that Tribunals are not eligible for allotment of general pool accommodation, the Chairman and Members of the tribunal are being denied the Government accommodation and, thus, rendering the Tribunal non-functional. 12. Before we pass the final order in the matter, let Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi be impleaded as a party-respondent in I.A.No.7 of 2012 and notice be issued to him returnable in three weeks. 13. Dasti, in addition to the ordinary process. 14. The Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development shall file his affidavit personally indicating therein the complete details of vacant type-VII and type-VIII bungalows in Delhi in general pool accommodation as on October 1, 2012 and the period for which each of these bungalows has been lying vacant. 15. List I.A. on October 30, 2012.