LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Whether the dispute should be referred to the Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal, is one of the issues to be decided in the suit. We are, however, required to decide the interim 24 application on the basis of data which is made available to us. 19. Hence, in view of the larger damage, which was caused in Haryana in the year 2010, and which is likely to be caused in Haryana, if the Bandh is not properly repaired as undertaken, the balance of convenience is in favour of the Defendant-State of Haryana. It is rightly pointed out by the State of Haryana that if the relief, as prayed for, is granted to the State of Punjab, it is State of Haryana, which will suffer greater loss and irreparable injury. It cannot as well be denied that State of Haryana has the right to carry out the necessary work in its territory and also the duty to its citizens.


                                                Non-Reportable






           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA






             CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION






    INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2011






                                IN






              ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 1 OF 2007








State of Punjab                                    ... Plaintiff






                             Versus






State of Haryana and others                     ... Defendants










                           O R D E R




J.M. Panchal, J.




      The State  of  Punjab has filed  Suit  No. 1 of 2007 






on July 11, 2007 in this Court under Article 131 of the 






Constitution   read   with   Order   XLVII   of   the   Supreme 






Court   Rules,   1966   and   claimed   a   decree   of   perpetual 






injunction   restraining   the   State   of   Haryana   from 



                                                                    2




further   proceeding   with   the   digging   of   channel   and 






construction   of   an   embankment   under   the   project 






named Hansi Branch - Bhutana Branch Multipurpose 






Channel   project   by   puncturing   the   Bhakra   Main   Line 






Canal.   The said State has also prayed for a decree of 






mandatory injunction directing the State of Haryana to 






dismantle the embankment of the project named Hansi 






Branch   -   Bhutana   Branch   Multipurpose   Channel 






Project   between   the   points   X   and   Y   in   the   map 






appended  to   the  plaint  as  Annexure   `A'.     The  State   of 






Punjab   has   further   prayed   for   a   decree   of   perpetual 






injunction restraining the Union of India, its agents or 






departments from granting any clearance to the project 






named Hansi Branch - Bhutana Branch Multipurpose 






Channel   Project   in   the   absence   of   the   concurrence   of 






the State of Punjab as contemplated and mandated by 






Article   13   of   the   Bhakra   Nangal   Agreement   entered 






into between the erstwhile State of Punjab and State of 






Rajasthan.








2.    The   Original   Suit   No.   1   of   2007   along   with   I.A. 






No.   1   of   2007   was   placed   before   this   Court   for 



                                                                 3




preliminary   hearing   on   August   17,   2007   and   after 






hearing   the   learned   counsel   for   the   parties,   following 






order was passed by the Court: -








            "Defendants have appeared.




            List the Suit along with this application 


      on 05th September, 2007.




            Written statement and the objections to 


      this I.A. may be filed in the meantime.




            The   defendant-State   is   restrained   from 


      rupturing   the   Bhakra   Main   Line   Canal 


      connecting   the   proposed   Hansi   Branch   - 


      Bhutana   Branch   Multipurpose   Channel   till 


      then."










After   pleadings   were   complete,   the   Court   had   framed 






five issues for determination by order dated August 26, 






2008.   Thereafter, pursuant to directions given by the 






Court from time to time the evidence is being recorded 






in the Suit.








3.    During the pendency of the above numbered Suit, 






      the State of Punjab has filed present interlocutory 






      application,   and   prayed   to   grant   ad   interim 






      injunction   restraining   the   Defendant-State   of 






      Haryana   from   further   proceeding   with   the 



                                                                   4




      construction   of   a   concrete   toe   wall/providing 






      concrete   lining   on   the   outer   slope   of   the   left 






      embankment   between   RD   45000   and   57000   of 






      the   Hansi   Branch   -   Bhutana   Branch 






      Multipurpose   Link   Channel   (MPCL).     On   service 






      of a copy of the interlocutory application the State 






      of   Haryana   has   filed   detailed   reply   to   which   the 






      State of Punjab has filed rejoinder.  








4.    This application was heard at great length and in 






      great   detail   on   different   dates   as   indicated   in 






      order-sheets.     On   August   26,   2011   Mr.   Mohan 






      Jain,   the   learned   Additional   Solicitor   General, 






      had   submitted   a   copy   of   "Brief   Note   on   BML   - 






      Hansi   Branch   -   Bhutana   Branch   Multipurpose 






      Link Channel (MPCL) Haryana" prepared in July, 






      2011.  A copy of the said Brief Note was taken on 






      record   and   the   plaintiff   as   well   as   defendants 






      were granted time to enable them to file response 






      to the report submitted by the learned Additional 






      Solicitor   General.     In   order   to   support   oral 






      arguments   the   learned   counsel   for   the   parties 



                                                                   5




      were   also   permitted   to   file   written   submissions 






      and   accordingly   the   learned   counsel   for   the 






      parties have filed written submissions.








5.    The   State   of   Punjab   has   taken   out   this   I.A.   to 






      restrain   the   construction   of   a   concrete   toe-wall 






      providing concrete lining on the outer slope of the 






      left  embankment.    The   case  of  the  Plaintiff-State 






      of   Punjab   is   that   this   strengthening   will   result 






      into an increased collection of back water and the 






      sheet   flow   towards   the   State   of   Punjab.     This 






      assertion   is   made  on  the   footing   that  because  of 






      heavy rains in July-August, 2010 and flooding of 






      the   river   Ghaggar,   which   flows   on   the   northern 






      since   of   the   stretch   RD   45,000   to   RD   57,000   of 






      this  canal,  such water-clogging   did  take  place  in 






      Punjab, in spite of a breach of the canal at point 






      RD   53,000,   and   whereby   some   15   villages 






      suffered   and   severe   damage   and   nuisance   of 






      various kinds over an area of around 5000 acres 






      had   taken   place.     The   breach   has   already   been 






      attended   by   the   State   of   Haryana,   to   which 



                                                                6




Punjab   did   not   object.     It   is   objecting   to   this 






strengthening  work which is being done to  avoid 






any   such   breach   in   the   future.     It  is   stated   that 






the   strengthening   work   undertaken   by   the 






Defendant-State   of   Haryana   is   likely   to   cause 






further   serious   nuisance.     According   to   the 






Plaintiff-State   of   Punjab,   the   principle   of 






cooperative   federalism   and   territorial   integrity   of 






the   State   of   Punjab   do   not   permit   the 






Government   of   Haryana   to   construct   a   toe-






wall/providing concrete  lining on the outer  slope 






of left embankment as the proposed construction 






has propensity of causing serious damage to lives 






and properties situated within the territory of the 






State   of   Punjab.     It   is   also   claimed   that   the 






construction undertaken by the State of Haryana, 






if   allowed   to   complete,   will   cause   in   the   event   of 






heavy   rains   and   flooding   of   River   Ghaggar,   in 






future   an   adverse   impact   on   the   population   of 






Punjab   in   more   than   70   villages   and   would 






inevitably   result   in   prolonged   and   perpetual 



                                                                   7




      submergence   of   thousands   of   acres   of   lands   in 






      more   than   32   villages.     The   State   of   Punjab   has 






      mentioned that the protective measures sought to 






      be undertaken by the State of Haryana are in the 






      very area in which breach had taken place during 






      the   floods   of   2010   and   but   for   the   breach,   the 






      floods   would   have   completely   inundated   and 






      annihilated 70 villages in Punjab territory if sheer 






      pressure   of   the   waters   had   not   resulted   in   the 






      canal being breached.   Under the circumstances, 






      the   State   of   Punjab   has   filed   the   present 






      application   and   claimed   the   relief   to   which 






      reference   is   made   earlier.     It   may   be   mentioned 






      that   the   prayer   made   by   the   State   of   Punjab   is 






      supported by the State of Rajasthan.








6.    Before   this   Court   deals   with   the   submissions 






      advanced   at   the   Bar   by   the   learned   counsel   for 






      the parties, it is absolutely necessary to note and 






      explain   the   topography   of   the   region   where 






      construction   of   concrete   toe   wall/providing 






      concrete   lining   on   the   outer   slope   of   the   left 



                                                                    8




      embankment   is   undertaken   by   the   State   of 






      Haryana.  








7.    The   Bhakra   Main   Line   Canal   runs   from   the 






      Bhakra   Dam   through   the   State   of   Punjab   and 






      goes   to   the   State   of   Haryana   and   then   further 






      goes towards the State of Rajasthan.  The State of 






      Haryana   was   carved   out   from   the   then   bigger 






      State   of   Punjab   and   it   came   into   existence   on 






      November   1,   1996.     There   are   two   rivers   which 






      flow   in   this   particular   region.     One   is   known   as 






      the   Patiala   Nadi.     It   runs   almost   parallel   to   the 






      Bhakra   Main   Line   Canal   from   north   to   south-






      west.     There   is   another   river   named   Ghaggar 






      which   runs   from   north-east   to   south-west.     The 






      plateau of  Punjab and Haryana  is a flat  plateau, 






      which   slopes   towards   the   State   of   Haryana. 






      There is a Bandh which has been constructed on 






      the   south   of   Ghaggar   River.     The   Bandh   runs 






      from   north-east   to   south-west.     This   Bandh   was 






      constructed way back in the year 1950 when the 






      State   of   Haryana   was   not   even   created.     The 



                                                                   9




      Bandh   was   constructed   so   that   when   the   river 






      gets flooded during monsoon, its water would not 






      further   overflow   towards   the   southern   side.     In 






      the   year   1970,   the   State   of   Punjab   constructed 






      what is known as the Mirapur Drain, which runs 






      from a point to the north-east of river Ghaggar in 






      the   State   of   Punjab   and   joins   into   this   river 






      somewhere   to   the   west   of   the   point   RD   45000. 






      The Court was informed that this drain is 30 feet 






      wide   and   10   feet   deep.           It   was   basically 






      constructed to drain the excess water.  








8.    It is pointed out on behalf of State of Haryana in 






      its reply that though the injunction, as prayed for 






      by the State of Punjab in I.A. No. 1 of 2007, was 






      granted,   the   construction   of   the   canal   was   not 






      restrained and it was completed by the year 2008 






      at the risk of State of Haryana.  It is also stated in 






      the   reply   that   due   to   injunction   granted   by   this 






      Court, no water has been flowing in this canal.  It 






      is common ground between the parties that at the 






      stretch   between   point   RD   45000   to   57000,   the 



                                                                    10




      canal and the Ghaggar River run parallel to each 






      other   for   a   distance   of   about   three   and   a   half 






      kilometres   within   the   territory   of   State   of 






      Haryana.     The   Bandh,   however,   is   towards   the 






      Punjab side and it is not disputed  that the work 






      which  the  State  of  Haryana  is  presently   carrying 






      out   is   at   the   bottom   of   the   Bandh   and 






      particularly   on   the   northern   side,   but   up   to   the 






      surface level a little above so that there should be 






      no seepage  of water and the  Bandh does  not get 






      weakened.








9.    It is pointed out by the State of Punjab that there 






      was so much heavy rain and overflow of water in 






      July/ August, 2010 that it led to a breach at the 






      point   RD   53000   (almost   at   the   centre   of   this 






      stretch   RD   45000   to   57000),   yet   because   of   the 






      Bandh and the canal there was huge back water 






      formation in the territory of Punjab, which led to 






      inundation   of   15   villages   in   the   State   of   Punjab. 






      It   is   claimed   by   the   State   of   Punjab   that   the 






      breach   has   been   attended   to   by   the   State   of 



                                                                     11




       Haryana   to   which   the   State   of   Punjab   did   not 






       object.   According to the State of Punjab, what is 






       being   objected   to   is   the   present   work   and   it   is 






       asserted  that if that is permitted, in the event of 






       heavy   rain   fall   and   excessive   water   in   river 






       Ghaggar, the water will not flow towards the State 






       of   Haryana,   but   the   back   water   will   spill   into 






       larger   territory   of   the   State   of   Punjab.     It   is 






       stressed that for protection the population of one 






       State,   problem   cannot   be   created   in   another 






       State.








10.    On behalf of the State of Haryana, however, it is 






       pointed   out   that   all   the   15   villages,   which   the 






       State   of   Punjab   has   pointed   out   as   having 






       suffered,   are   to   the   north   of   the   Mirapur   Drain 






       and are quite  far  off.    Only four of  those  villages 






       are   somewhat   near   on   the   northern   side   of   this 






       Mirapur Drain.   It is, therefore, contended that if 






       there is heavy rain waters from the northern side 






       of Mirapur Drain, it would get collected into that 






       drain and go down into Ghaggar River to a point 



                                                              12




to the west of RD 45000.   According to the State 






of Haryana, if there are heavy rains, the water in 






the   area   between   the   Mirapur   Drain   and   the 






Ghaggar   River   will   go   into   the   Ghaggar   River   or 






spill over into the Punjab territory because of the 






Bandh,   but   that   has   always   been   so,   and   if   the 






Bandh   is   not   strengthened   and   more   breaches 






take place, water will flow down towards Haryana 






definitely   affecting   19   villages   in   the   immediate 






vicinity.     The   State   of   Haryana   has   claimed   that 






this is what had happened in July, 2010 when as 






against   some   5765   acres   of   land   getting 






submerged   in   the   State   of   Punjab,   more   than 






12,036   acres   of   land   had   got   submerged   in   the 






State of Haryana affecting the population of some 






19   villages.     It   is   pointed   out   by   the   Defendant-






State of Haryana that earlier way-back in the year 






1993   this   Bandh   had   breached   and   the   State   of 






Haryana   had   attended   it   at   that   very   point. 






According  to the State  of Haryana,  the  canal did 






not exist at that point of time and, therefore, the 



                                                             13




Bandh,   which   was   very   much   there,   had   to   be 






repaired.  The State of Haryana has asserted that 






the   Bandh   was   created   when   the   State   of 






Haryana was not in existence and creation of the 






Bandh was with a view to preventing the damage 






basically   arising   out   of   heavy   flow   of   water 






towards villages to the south of the Bandh, which 






are   now   in   Haryana.     Explaining   further,   it   is 






pointed   that   the   State   of   Haryana   had   repaired 






this Bandh in the year 1993 and subsequently in 






the   year   2010   and   that   the   Defendant-State   of 






Haryana   should   be   permitted   to   strengthen   the 






basement of the Bandh to avoid the recurrence of 






such an event.   What is asserted by the State of 






Haryana   is   that   the   breach   which   had   taken 






place   in   the   year   2010   was   attended   to,   and   to 






avoid the recurrence the foundation of the Bandh 






is   being   strengthened   to   stop   the   seepage   of 






water.     What   is   mentioned   by   the   State   of 






Haryana is that the work, which is being carried 






out, is not in the canal but is at the bottom of the 



                                                                     14




       Bandh,   which   is   towards   the   Punjab   side.     It   is 






       further  stated  that the work is up to the surface 






       level  and  it  is  only  to  avoid the  seepage of  water 






       therein.     Thus,   the   State   of   Haryana   prays   to 






       dismiss the I.A. No. 7 of 2011 filed by the State of 






       Punjab.








11.    It is necessary to notice that the State of Haryana 






       has   relied   upon   the   report   of   the   Central   Water 






       Commission.  The State of Punjab has objected to 






       the reliance thereof on the ground that when the 






       engineers   of   Central   Water   Commission   visited 






       the   particular   area,   the   Punjab   engineers   were 






       not   informed   and   it   is   a   one-sided   report. 






       However,   it   is   material   to   note   that   the   report 






       clearly   states   that   the   strengthening   of   the 






       basement   of   the   canal   is   not   going  to   cause   any 






       serious   prejudice   as   is   claimed   by   the   State   of 






       Punjab   on   the   Punjab   side   of   the   Bandh.     It   is 






       also   mentioned   in   the   report   that   there   are 






       already siphons provided for water to flow under 






       the  canal,  which  is,   of  course,   at a  height   of  ten 



                                                                      15




       to   twelve   feet   above   the   surface   level.     In   the 






       stretch between RD 45000 to 57000, this Court is 






       not much concerned with canal or its height, but 






       with   the   strengthening   of   the   basement   of   the 






       Bandh.








12.    As noticed earlier, the Bandh was constructed at 






       a time when the State of Haryana was not carved 






       out.   The State of Haryana has a duty to protect 






       the   lives   and   property   of   the   citizens   residing 






       within   its   territory   and   a   right   to   carry   out   the 






       work within its territory to protect its people.  It is 






       true   that   the   State   of   Punjab   has   produced 






       photographs   and   other   materials   to   show   the 






       flooding   in   the   area   to   the   north   of   Ghaggar 






       Bandh   at   the   stretch   between   RD   45000   to 






       57000.  However, in view of what is stated earlier, 






       it   is   not   possible   to   hold   that   the   previous 






       flooding   except   for   a   limited   area   in   Punjab   was 






       caused basically because of Ghaggar Bandh.



                                                                     16




13.    As   against   that,   this   Court   finds   that   the   very 






       purpose   of   the   Bandh   has   been   to   prevent   the 






       flooding of the  areas on  the  southern side  of  the 






       Bandh,   which   is   in   Haryana.     The   particulars 






       supplied   by   the   State   of   Haryana   to   this   Court 






       would show that extensive damage was caused to 






       the 19 villages of the State of Haryana, which was 






       obviously   due   to   breach   of   this   Bandh/canal   at 






       the point RD 53000.  








14.    It is relevant to mention that the Professors of IIT, 






       Roorkee,   who   visited   the   site,   had   suggested 






       remedial   measures   in   their   report   stating   that 






       "seepage might be one of the causes of breach of 






       Hansi-Bhutana   Branch   MPLC....   Necessity   of 






       proving   a   barrier   on   both   banks   of   breached 






       reach of canal and on the left bank only in similar 






       weak   reaches   of   canal   to   be   identified   by 






       department.     This  could   be   done   by   way  of  steel 






       sheet   pile   or   RCC   wall   or   steel   sheet   pile   with 






       RCC cap".



                                                                           17




15.    In fact the State of Punjab's own expert has also 






       admitted   the   need  to   strengthen   the   Bandh.    He 






       had made another suggestion in his report of July 






       13, 2011.  The suggestion made is as under: -








       "It   is   a   well   understood   knowledge   that   a 


       deep   vertical   cut-off   or   a   sheet   pile   is   better 


       suited   for   seepage   control   as   compared   to   a 


       toe   wall   and,   ...........   toe   walls   are   generally 


       shallower   in   comparison   and   are   usually 


       required in order to provide support for slope 


       protection measures such as stone pitching."










Further,   paragraph   10.1   of   the   CWC   Report   of   July, 






2011 mentions following relevant facts: -








       "The   RCC   toe   wall/protection   wall   is   being 


       constructed   with   a   RCC   CAP   whose   top   has 


       been   shown   to   be   flush   with   NSL.     This 


       implies that the top of the toe wall will be at 


       or slightly above or below NSL.  Therefore the 


       toe wall will not act as an obstruction for flow 


       of water."




              xxx                  xxx                   xxx




       "Construction  of the toe wall  is a part  of  the 


       embankment,   with   its   top   at   NSL,   and   its 


       construction   will   not   interfere   with   the 


       existing drainage system in a very significant 


       manner." (NSL = Natural Surface Level)



                                                                      18




16.    (i)    An   assertion   is   made   by   the   State   of 






       Haryana that in fact State of Haryana had relied 






       on the principle of cooperative federalism against 






       the   State   of   Punjab   during   the   course   of 






       arguments in its Suit No. 6 of 1996 relating to the 






       construction   of   the   Satluj   Yamuna   Link   Canal 






       and   other   schemes  and   that  the   State   of  Punjab 






       is not entitled to invoke the said principle against 






       the State of Haryana because of its conduct.   We 






       do not think it appropriate to go into this issue in 






       the present application.   Similarly, the argument 






       advanced   on   behalf   of   the   State   of   Punjab   that 






       after   having   repaired   the   breach   in   2010,   the 






       current   strengthening   work   by   Haryana   is 






       nothing   but   political   posturing   need   not   be 






       examined   by   this   Court   because   in   reply   to   this 






       contention, it is argued by the learned counsel for 






       the   State   of   Haryana   that   in   fact   I.A.   No.   7   of 






       2011   is   nothing   but   political   posturing   on   the 






       part   of   State   of   Punjab   and   the   application   has 






       been motivated by internal politics in Punjab just 



                                                                          19




       prior   to   impending   elections   late   this   year/early 






       next   year.     Such   an   issue   cannot   be   decided   on 






       the   basis   of   allegations   and   counter-allegations 






       made by the parties and appropriate evidence will 






       have to be led by the parties to enable the Court 






       to decide the same.  








       (ii)    The apprehensions expressed by the State of 






Punjab   in   paragraph   16   of   the   I.A.   No.   7   of   2011   are 






based on hypothesis.   We are informed by the State of 






Punjab that the cunnette capacity of Mirapur Drain is 






829   cs.   after   its   widening   in   2003-2004   and   is   not 






sufficient   to   drain   all   the   flood   water.     We   are   also 






informed   that   the   ground   level   of   the   villages   varies 






between 778 to 784 ft.  The highest flood level of River 






Ghaggar is of the order of about 794 ft. as mentioned 






in   the   2008   report   of   CWC.     It   was,   therefore, 






submitted   that   if   the   water   level   in   the   area   of   the 






north of the canal goes up by 2 ft., the flooding in the 






villages will be to the extent of 8 ft. (792.4 - 784).  As of 






now   itself,   it   is   difficult   to   accept   that   the   flooding   in 






the   areas   to   the   north   of   Mirapur   Drain   was   caused 



                                                                     20




due to the flooding in River Ghaggar, where 4 villages 






are situated somewhat nearby to the north of Mirapur 






Drain.     Assuming   to   be   so,   the   other   11   villages   are 






much   further   to   the   north   and   nearer   to   the   Patiala 






Nadi.   If there are heavy showers because of monsoon 






and   the   rivers   and   nalas   get   flooded   that   will   be 






because of heavy rains all over the areas.  Heavy rains 






will  be  in those  areas  also and it is  difficult  to accept 






that the areas in the 15 villages got flooded because of 






the   Ghaggar   Bandh,   despite   the   breach   therein.     In 






any   case   it   is   very   clear   that   the   damage   in   the   19 






villages in Haryana which are on the southern side of 






River Ghaggar is clearly attributable to the over flowing 






waters   of   River   Ghaggar   as   well   as   water   flowing 






through   the   breach.     The   relief   claimed   in   the 






interlocutory application cannot, therefore, be granted 






on the basis of a hypothesis, that the strengthening of 






the   Bandh   will   cause   flooding   in   70   villages.     The 






submission made on behalf of the State of Punjab that 






strengthening   of   Ghaggar   Bandh   would   cause 






backwater   formation   in   Punjab   and   thus,   exacerbate 



                                                                      21




the nuisance of submerging of villages in Punjab to the 






north of the Ghaggar Bandh, is not correct because the 






Ghaggar Bandh was constructed by the erstwhile State 






of Punjab in 1950s for the purpose of preventing flood 






waters, entering and submerging areas to the south of 






the   Bandh.     It   was   constructed   neither   to   guide   the 






course   of   River   Ghaggar   nor   was   it   designed   to   be 






deliberately   weak  enough  to  give   way  in   heavy   floods. 






It  was constructed   to hold backwaters  in the  heaviest 






of floods to prevent flood waters from ever submerging 






the   villages   to   the   south.     The   Bandh   performed   the 






function   for   which   it   was   designed   until   the   first 






breach   occurred   in   1993.     Though   the   breach   which 






had occurred in 1993 was repaired and stone-pitching 






was   applied   to   the   outer   slope   to   make   the   Bandh 






stronger,   the   flood   of   2010   resulted   into   another 






breach   in   the   same   area   causing   serious   and 






widespread damage.  The case of State of Punjab rests 






on the premise that the breach repaired area should be 






allowed   to   remain   as   it   is   without   strengthening   it   so 






that   it   can   breach   again   if   there   is   flood   once   again, 



                                                                       22




and   this   area   can   act   as   a   pressure   release   valve, 






which would cause less damage to the State of Punjab. 






This   assertion  of   right   is   contrary   to   the   rights   of   the 






Defendant-State   of   Haryana,   which   is   entitled   to 






protect   its   inhabitants   from   floods   just   as   erstwhile 






State of Punjab was entitled to protect  its inhabitants 






to   the   south   of   the   Bandh.     The   State   of   Haryana   is 






only ensuring that after the two disastrous breaches of 






1993 and 2010, a breach does not occur in the future. 






This   Court   is   of   the   opinion   that   the   State   of   Punjab 






cannot reasonably object to this course of action.  








17.    As is evident, a concrete toe-wall or a vertical cut-






       off   below   the   ground   from   the   natural   surface 






       level   is   intended   to   prevent   slippage   of   the 






       concrete lining and also prevent seepage of water 






       below   the   ground   level   because   it   is   such   high 






       level   of   seepage   continuing   throughout   the 






       monsoon   that   erodes   the   base   of   the 






       Bandh/embankment   and   by   a   sliding   movement 






       makes   the   Bandh   weak   and   unstable.     Such   a 






       weak and unstable Bandh is unable to withstand 



                                                                          23




       the   pressure   of   the   flood   water   above   ground 






       level.   The concrete  lining  proposed on  the  outer 






       slope is to strengthen the Bandh for withstanding 






       flood   water   pressure   above   ground   level   and   to 






       prevent   slippage   of   the   lining.     Both   these 






       measures  have only one  object,  i.e., to prevent  a 






       breach of the Bandh.  The toe-wall would prevent 






       seepage   below   ground   and   also   prevent   the 






       weakening of the base of the Bandh, whereas the 






       concrete   lining   of   the   outer   slope   of   the   Bandh 






       above   ground   level   would   enable   it   to   withstand 






       the pressure of flood water.








18.    Before   we  conclude,   we must   note   that  although 






       both   the   States   are   canvassing   the   principle   of 






       inter-State   cooperation,   yet   there   is   this 






       unfortunate            controversy.                The         Central 






       Government has not taken any stand whatsoever. 






       Whether   the   dispute   should   be   referred   to   the 






       Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal, is one 






       of   the   issues   to   be   decided   in   the   suit.     We   are, 






       however,   required   to   decide   the   interim 



                                                                     24




       application   on   the   basis   of   data   which   is   made 






       available to us.








19.    Hence,   in   view   of   the   larger   damage,   which   was 






       caused in Haryana in the year 2010, and which is 






       likely   to   be   caused   in   Haryana,   if   the   Bandh   is 






       not properly repaired as undertaken, the balance 






       of convenience is in favour of the Defendant-State 






       of Haryana.   It is rightly pointed out by the State 






       of   Haryana   that   if   the   relief,   as   prayed   for,   is 






       granted   to   the   State   of   Punjab,   it   is   State   of 






       Haryana,   which   will   suffer   greater   loss   and 






       irreparable   injury.     It   cannot   as   well   be   denied 






       that   State   of   Haryana   has   the   right   to   carry   out 






       the   necessary   work   in   its   territory   and   also   the 






       duty to its citizens.








20.    For   the   foregoing   reasons,   it   is   not   possible   to 






       entertain   this   Interlocutory   Application.     The 






       same is, therefore, rejected.










                                      ....................................J.



                                                   25




                                 (J.M. PANCHAL)










                              .....................................J.


                                (H.L. GOKHALE)


New Delhi;


September 23, 2011.