Thursday, February 29, 2024

Karnataka High Court refuses to entertain PIL seeking publication of missing Karnataka column

The Karnataka High Court declined indulgence in the PIL , filed seeking direction to the respondents-1 (Secretary , Government of india ,Ministry of Water Resources and Respondent- 2 (The Kaveri Water Management Authority) to publish the missing Karnataka Column with held at Clause 9A by the Kaveri Tribunal .

The petition is couched broadly in the following words:

“To direct the respondents-1 and 2 to publish the missing Karnataka Column with held at Clause 9A by the Kaveri Tribunal for Unknown reasons and to Remove the Legal Error and Lacuna apparent on the Face of the Records to put a judicious end to this Settled Dispute under Article 227 of the Constitution within 2 weeks as WITH HELD COLUMN MONTHLY FIGURES are already with them on Hand in the upheld Kaveri Tribunal Verdict”.

The party-in-person vehemently argues that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, court has power to rectify the arguable defect, which according to him, is apparent on the face of the record, and therefore, the same needs to be rectified by issuing an appropriate direction.

Advocate General for the State and the CGC for the Center, oppose the petition drawing our attention to the provisions of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 enacted by the Parliament in terms of Article 262(2) of Constitution of India. They also submit that already the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal has been functioning for decades and therefore, judicial intervention is neither permissible nor desirable, since matter essentially touches Inter-State water dispute.

Having heard the party-in-person and the counsel appearing for the respondents and having perused the Petition Papers, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit is of a considered view that the stand taken by the respondents broadly accords with the legal position as to impermissibility of judicial intervention in matters of the kind. This view gains support from the observations of the Apex Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AIR 2001 SC 1560 and STATE OF ORISSA V. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, (2009) 5 SCC 492.


News Update