Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (for short, the 'Act') - This suit has been filed by the plaintiff � State of Odisha seeking the following reliefs inter alia by way of injunction against the contesting defendant no.1 � State of Chhattisgarh : = It is clear that the above statement made by the Minister is with reference to this very dispute and the Ministry has concluded that the disputes cannot be resolved by negotiations. We, therefore, have no hesitation in directing that the Central Government shall issue appropriate notification in the Official Gazette and constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal for adjudication of the water dispute between the parties herein within a period of one month from today. Accordingly, the plaint in Original Suit No.1 of 2017 is returned to the plaintiff for its presentation and adjudication by the Water Disputes Tribunal to be newly constituted by the Central Government. We order accordingly. With the aforesaid directions, the instant suit is disposed of as having returned to the plaintiff for its presentation to the Water Disputes Tribunal.

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1 OF 2017
State of Odisha ....Plaintiff
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.      ....Defendants
O R D E R
This suit has been filed by the plaintiff � State of
Odisha seeking the following reliefs  inter alia  by way of
injunction   against   the   contesting   defendant   no.1   �   State
of Chhattisgarh :
(a) Grant   an   injunction   restraining   Defendant
No.1,   its   servants   and   agents   from   continuing
with   the   construction   and   operation   of   the   six
ongoing   industrial   barrages   namely   Samoda,
Seorinarayan,   Basantpur,   Mirouni,   Saradiha   and
Kalma,   pending   constitution   of   the   Tribunal   as
sought in the complaint dated 21.11.2016 filed by
the   Plaintiff   for   resolution   of   the   water
disputes   in   respect   of   waters   of   the   Mahanadi
Basin;
(b) Grant   an   injunction   restraining   Defendant
No.1,   its   servants   and   agents   from   continuing
with   the   construction   and   operation   of   seven
ongoing   projects   for   utilization   of   2.95   MAF   of

2
water   annually   viz.,   Kelo,   Arpa-Bhaisajhar
Barrage,   Sondhur,   Rajiv   Samodanisda   Diversion
Project,   Phase-II,   Mongra   Barrage,   Ph-II
Sukhanalla   barrage   and   Ghumariya   Nalla   Barrage,
pending constitution of the Tribunal as sought in
the   complaint   dated   21.11.2016   filed   by   the
Plaintiff for resolution of the water disputes in
respect of waters of the Mahanadi Basin;
(c) Grant   an   injunction   restraining   Defendant
No.1, its servants and agents from taking up any
projects  against  the  category  of  future  projects
mentioned   in   the   letter   dated   27.08.2016   of   the
State   of   Chhattisgarh   in   ANNEXURE   P-1,   pending
constitution   of   the   Tribunal   as   sought   in   the
complaint dated 21.11.2016 filed by the Plaintiff
for   resolution   of   the   water   disputes   in   respect
of waters of the Mahanadi Basin. 
Union   of   India   is   defendant   no.2   and   the   States   of
Madhya   Pradesh,   Maharashtra   and   Jharkhand   are   proforma
defendant   nos.3,   4   and   5   respectively,   in   the   instant
Suit.
Having   regard   to   the   provisions   of   the   Inter-State
River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (for short, the 'Act'), a
submission   was   made   before   us   that   it   would   be
appropriate   to   refer   the   matter   to   a   Water   Disputes
Tribunal   under   the   said   Act.   We   were   then   informed   that
such   a   Tribunal   has   not   been   constituted   so   far.   From
time   to   time,   adjournments   were   sought   in   the   matter   on
behalf   of   Defendant   No.2   �   Union   of   India   to   report   the

3
stage  at  which  the  matter  pertaining  to  the  constitution
of   Water   Disputes   Tribunal,   rests.   We   find   that   no   such
Tribunal   is   constituted   till   date   by   the   Central
Government.
Mr.   Atmaram   N.S.   Nadkarni,   learned   Additional
Solicitor General appearing for Defendant No.2 � Union of
India, submits that the Water Disputes Tribunal could not
be   constituted   because   one   of   the   disputing   States   did
not come forward to resolve the disputes by negotiations.
Therefore,   according   to   Mr.   Nadkarni,   learned
Additional   Solicitor   General   appearing   for   Defendant
No.2,   the   Central   Government   has   not   come   to   the
conclusion   that   the   dispute   cannot   be   settled   by
negotiations, as contemplated by Section 4 of the Act.
Mr.   Mukul   Rohatgi,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing
for   the   plaintiff,   has   pointed   out   a   statement   made   by
the   Minister   of   State   for   Water   Resources,   River
Development   and   Ganga   Rejuvenation,   on   the   floor   of   the
Rajya   Sabha,   Parliament   of   India,   to   the   following
effect:
�The   Negotiation   Committee   held   two   meetings
on 28.02.2017 and 22.05.2017 and submitted its
report   in   which   it   is   mentioned   that   any
further   meetings   of   this   Committee   would   not
be fruitful as there had been no participation
from complainant State i.e. State of Odisha in
both   the   meetings.   Accordingly,   the   Ministry
concluded   that   the   dispute   cannot   be   resolved
by   negotiation   and   it   has   been   decided   to
constitute   a   Tribunal   for   adjudication   of   the
dispute. Draft Cabinet Note in this regard has
been prepared.

4
It   is   clear   that   the   above   statement   made   by   the
Minister   is   with   reference   to   this   very   dispute   and   the
Ministry   has   concluded   that   the   disputes   cannot   be
resolved by negotiations. 
We,   therefore,   have   no   hesitation   in   directing   that
the   Central   Government   shall   issue   appropriate
notification   in   the   Official   Gazette   and   constitute   a
Water   Disputes   Tribunal   for   adjudication   of   the   water
dispute between the parties herein within a period of one
month   from   today.   Accordingly,   the   plaint   in   Original
Suit   No.1   of   2017   is   returned   to   the   plaintiff   for   its
presentation   and   adjudication   by   the   Water   Disputes
Tribunal   to   be   newly   constituted   by   the   Central
Government.
We order accordingly.  
With   the   aforesaid   directions,   the   instant   suit   is
disposed   of   as   having   returned   to   the   plaintiff   for   its
presentation to the Water Disputes Tribunal. 
Needless to mention that questions of all reliefs as
may be allowed to the parties, are left open.
....................J
[S. A. BOBDE]
....................J
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 23, 2018.

5
ITEM NO.10               COURT NO.7               SECTION XVII
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Original Suit No.1/2017
STATE OF ODISHA                                    Plaintiff(s)
                                VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.                       Defendants
(IA   No.60623/2017-PERMISSION   TO   FILE   ADDITIONAL   DOCUMENTS 
FOR  [APP FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS] ON IA 2/2017
and   IA   No.134950/2017-CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION   and   IA
No.7781/2018-XTRA)
Date : 23-01-2018 This Suit was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mohan V. Katarki, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Karan Lahiri, Adv.
Ms. Parul Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Dwivedi, Adv. 
                    Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
                 
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nitin Sonkar, Adv.
                    Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Atul Jha, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR
Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, ASG
Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv.
Mrs. Swarupma Chaturvedi, Adv.
                    Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
               
                    Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR 
Mr. Mohd. Waquas, Adv.

6
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv.
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
The instant suit is disposed of as having returned to the
plaintiff, in terms of the signed order.
Pending   interlocutory   applications,   if   any,   stand
disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-II)                          (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL)
COURT MASTER (SH)                                  ASST.REGISTRAR
(Signed Order is placed on the file)