TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds Tamil Nadu's suit under Article 131, declares Kerala Act unconstitutional.</h1> <h3>State of Tamil Nadu Versus State of Kerala and Anr.</h3> The Supreme Court held that the suit filed by Tamil Nadu is maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution. The Kerala Irrigation and Water ... Problem with regard to the water level of Mullaperiyar dam after it had solved on 27.02.2006 (Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum) because the Kerala State Legislature enacted the law immediately thereafter fixing and limiting Full Reservoir Level (FRL) to 136 ft - Held that:- Tamil Nadu is entitled to the reliefs as prayed in para 40 (i) and (ii) of the suit. Consequently, it is declared that the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006 passed by the Kerala legislature is unconstitutional in its application to and effect on the Mullaperiyar dam. The 1st defendant-State of Kerala-is restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from applying and enforcing the impugned legislation or in any manner interfering with or obstructing the State of Tamil Nadu from increasing the water level to 142 ft. and from carrying out the repair works as per the judgment of this Court dated 27.2.2006 in W.P.(C) No. 386/2001 with connected matters. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India.2. Constitutionality and validity of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006.3. Res judicata effect of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 27.02.2006.4. Validity and binding nature of the 1886 Lease Agreement and the effect of the 1970 supplemental agreements.5. Whether the Periyar River is an inter-State river.6. Offer by Kerala to construct a new dam across River Periyar.7. Reliefs to which Tamil Nadu is entitled.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Maintainability of the Suit under Article 131The Supreme Court held that the suit filed by Tamil Nadu is maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution. The suit is not barred by the proviso to Article 131 as the 1886 Lease Agreement is not a political arrangement but an ordinary lease agreement.Issue 2: Constitutionality and Validity of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006The Court found the 2006 (Amendment) Act unconstitutional and ultra vires in its application to the Mullaperiyar dam. The Act seeks to nullify the Supreme Court's judgment dated 27.02.2006 by declaring the dam to be endangered and fixing the water level at 136 ft. The legislation was found to be an attempt to usurp judicial power, violating the separation of powers doctrine and the rule of law. The Court emphasized that the legislature cannot overturn a final judgment of the court.Issue 3: Res Judicata Effect of the Supreme Court's Judgment Dated 27.02.2006The Supreme Court held that its earlier judgment dated 27.02.2006 operates as res judicata on the issue of the safety of the Mullaperiyar dam for raising the water level to 142 ft. The findings of fact regarding the safety of the dam cannot be altered by legislative action. The rule of res judicata applies even to decisions rendered in writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.Issue 4: Validity and Binding Nature of the 1886 Lease Agreement and the Effect of the 1970 Supplemental AgreementsThe Court held that the 1886 Lease Agreement is valid, binding on Kerala, and enforceable by Tamil Nadu. The 1970 supplemental agreements reaffirmed the 1886 Lease Agreement. Kerala is estopped from raising the plea that the lease deed dated 29.10.1886 has lapsed, in view of the supplemental agreements dated 29.05.1970.Issue 5: Whether the Periyar River is an Inter-State RiverThe Court held that Kerala is estopped from contending that the Periyar River is not an inter-State river. The evidence indicated that part of the Periyar basin falls in Tamil Nadu, making it an inter-State river. The plea of Kerala in the earlier proceedings and the topographical evidence supported this conclusion.Issue 6: Offer by Kerala to Construct a New Dam Across River PeriyarThe Court noted that the offer made by Kerala to construct a new dam cannot be imposed on Tamil Nadu without mutual agreement. The construction of a new dam requires the consent of both parties, which is not forthcoming.Issue 7: Reliefs to which Tamil Nadu is EntitledThe Court declared the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006 unconstitutional in its application to the Mullaperiyar dam. Kerala was permanently restrained from applying and enforcing the impugned legislation or obstructing Tamil Nadu from increasing the water level to 142 ft. and carrying out repair works as per the judgment dated 27.02.2006. To address Kerala's apprehensions, a 3-Member Supervisory Committee was constituted to oversee the restoration of the water level and ensure the safety of the dam.ConclusionThe suit was decreed in favor of Tamil Nadu, with the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006 being declared unconstitutional in its application to the Mullaperiyar dam. Kerala was permanently restrained from obstructing Tamil Nadu's rights as determined by the Supreme Court's judgment dated 27.02.2006.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
