Inter-State water dispute reference becomes mandatory once negotiations fail and the Central Government must constitute a tribunal.

Article 262 and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 create a special mechanism for inter-State water disputes, and Section 11 bars the Supreme Court and other courts from examining the factual merits of disputes referable to a tribunal. On the materials considered, prolonged unsuccessful negotiations showed that settlement by negotiation had failed, and once that stage was reached, Section 4 made it obligatory for the Central Government to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal on a request under Section 3. The Central Government was therefore directed to notify constitution of an appropriate tribunal within one month for adjudication of the dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition beyond the limited question of requiring a reference of the inter-State water dispute to a tribunal, and whether the Central Government was bound to constitute a tribunal under the statute.

Analysis: Article 262 and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, together create a special mechanism for adjudication of disputes concerning inter-State rivers. Section 11 bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts in respect of water disputes referable to a tribunal under the Act, so the Court could not examine the factual merits of the dispute itself. However, on the materials before it, including prolonged unsuccessful negotiations and the stand of the Central Government, the Court concluded that the dispute could no longer be settled by negotiation. Once that stage was reached, Section 4 made it obligatory for the Central Government to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal on receiving a request under Section 3.

Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the Central Government was directed to notify the constitution of an appropriate tribunal within one month for adjudication of the water dispute.

---