TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 1197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erritory of Chandigarh (defendant No. 5), on the other hand, under Article 131 of the Constitution of India relates to the power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects. The Case of the Plaintiff (State of Himachal Pradesh) in the plaint 2. The Bhakra dam across the river Satluj was proposed in the year 1944 in the Bilaspur State. The construction of Bhakra dam was to result in submergence of a large territory of the Bilaspur State but would benefit the Province of Punjab. Hence, the Raja of Bilaspur agreed to the proposal for construction of the Bhakra dam only on certain terms and conditions detailed in a draft agreement which was to be executed on behalf of the Raja of Bilaspur and the Province of Punjab. These terms and conditions included payment of royalties for generation of power from the water of the reservoir of the Bhakra dam. The formal agreement between the Raja of Bilaspur and the province of Punjab, however, could not be executed as the Bilaspur State ceded to the Dominion of India in 1948. When the Constitution of India was adopted in the year 1950, Bilaspur and Himachal Pradesh were specified as Part-C States in the First Schedule to the Constitution....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om river Beas at Pandoh, a reservoir comprising an area of 323 (three hundred & twenty three) acres and a storage capacity of 33240 (thirty three thousand two hundred and forty) acre feet have been created. Unit-II of the project involved the construction of Pong Dam across river Beas at Pong and the construction of the Pong Dam has caused submergence of more than 65050 (sixty five thousand & fifty) acres of land in Kangra District including prime and fertile agricultural land. Consequently, a large number of families have been uprooted from their homes and fertile agricultural land which they were cultivating and these families need to be rehabilitated. Although Units-I and II of Beas Project are located in the State of Himachal Pradesh, benefits of the two units have accrued to Defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. 5. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to its due share of power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects. Under the scheme for apportionment of assets and liabilities between the successor States in the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 the assets and liabilities are to be transferred to the successor States in proportion to the population ratio distributed between ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Beas Projects. 7. In the absence of the any such final determination by the Central Government, the power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects presently is being shared by an ad hoc arrangement. After deducting the power consumed for auxiliary purposes and the transmission losses, the balance of the power generated in the two projects is presently apportioned on ad hoc basis is given as under: Bhakra-Nangal Beas Name of the State/U.T Unit I (Dehar) Unit II (Pong) Rajasthan 15.22% 20% 58.50% The remaining is shared as under: 84.78% 80% 41.50% Punjab 54.50% 60% 60% Haryana 39.50% 40% 40% H.P. 2.5% 15 MW Nil U.T. Chandigarh 3.5% Nil Nil 8. The cause of action for filing the suit arose when the Central Government ultimately failed to determine the lawful claim of the Plaintiff and intimated its decision in this regard by letter dated 11.04.1994 and when a joint meeting of all the parties under the aegis of the Principal Secretary of the Prime Minister held on 30.08.1995 failed to arrive at any agreement with tangible results. For ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpleted in 1963 and the Beas Project was completed in 1977 and the suit filed by the Plaintiff in 1996 claiming damages from Defendant No. 1 was hopelessly barred by limitation. 11. By an agreement executed on 13.01.1959, the composite State of Punjab and the State of Rajasthan agreed for the construction of the Bhakra dam across the river Satluj as well as other ancillary works and the object of this Bhakra-Nangal Project was to generate hydro-electric power and to improve irrigation facilities for their respective States and also agreed to fund and derive benefits from the Bhakra-Nangal Project in the ratio of 84.78% and 15.22; respectively. Accordingly, the share of the power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal Project of the State of Rajasthan was 15.22% and the share of the power of composite State of Punjab was 84.78%. After the reorganisation of Punjab in 1966, the representatives of the successor States/Union Territories, namely Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh and Himachal Pradesh agreed at a meeting held on 17.04.1967 in presence of the Secretary, Ministry of Irrigation and Power, Government of India that the share of power of the four successor States/Union Territories out of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in the D.O. Letter dated 28.06.1995 of the Ministry. 15. Under Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, the claims of the successor States/Union Territories to the power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects can be settled either by agreement between the successor States/Union Territories or by the decision of the Central Government and not by the court. The dispute raised by the Plaintiff regarding distribution of electricity from hydro projects between the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 is an extremely sensitive issue and experience of controversy surrounding the Cauvery dispute between Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Pondicherry and Kerala clearly demonstrates that there are grave risks which may give rise to agitation and eventual politicization with regard to river water system, irrigation and electricity and this is an important aspect which has to be borne in the background while dealing with the present dispute. The suit is not maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution. Written statement by Defendant No. 2 (State of Punjab) 16. The suit as filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution and the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.1985 and sanction for investment in Bhakra and Beas Projects was much prior to 12.02.1985. 20. Population alone cannot be considered as the basis for sharing of power because the connected supply to the consumers in the successors States/Union Territories of the composite State of Punjab has to be maintained. Any increase, therefore, in the quota of power to Himachal Pradesh at the cost of the State of Punjab would mean further hardship to the consumers in the State of Punjab, which is already facing a serious power crisis. 21. Punjab being a down-stream riparian State of the rivers Satluj and Beas is entitled to utilize the water flowing from the two rivers and the Plaintiff was free to utilize the up-stream water in the two rivers in the manner it liked. But since it did not have the resources to do so, the States of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan have invested in the construction of the two projects. By the two projects, Himachal Pradesh has not lost anything in the process, except that the land located in the Himachal Pradesh has been acquired for the projects and more than adequate compensation has been paid to the owners of the land and reasonable arrangements have als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wer generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects on the basis of the transferred population ratio and therefore the claim of the plaintiff to 7.19% of the total power generated in the two projects is not legally tenable. The Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects were constructed pursuant to an agreement between the State of Punjab and the State of Rajasthan and the State of Himachal Pradesh which came to existence much later was entitled to power as per the provisions incorporated in the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. 27. The Department of Power, Government of India, in its D.O. Letter dated 30.03.1978 to the Chairman, B.B.M.B. conveyed the decision of Government of India that the plaintiff be supplied 15 M.W. of power generated from Beas Power Plant and this supply was to be on ad hoc basis, at Bus Bar rates, pending final decision about its share of power which was to be examined separately. Subsequently, by letter dated 16.08.1983 of the Department of Power, Government of India, the Chairman, B.B.M.B. has been informed that the quantum of benefits from Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects presently allocated to Himachal Pradesh will remain unaltered until a final decision is taken....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....habilitation of the oustees of the Bhakra- Nangal Project in Sirsa and Hissar Districts and rehabilitation of oustees of the Beas Project in Indira Gandhi Pariyojana. 31. The share of the State of Rajasthan in the power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal Project is 15.22% and Unit- I of Beas Project is 20% and Unit-II of Beas Project is 58.50% and these allocations of share are not interim or ad hoc but are final. The one-man Committee headed by Shri K.S. Subrahmanyam was not constituted after consultation with the State of Rajasthan and hence the recommendation of this Committee has no relevance so far as the State of Rajasthan is concerned. In any case, the report of Shri K. S. Subrahmanyam is not a legally admissible document. The claim of 12% of the total power generated in Bhakra- Nangal and Beas Projects on the basis of the Plaintiff being the "Mother State" is baseless. Both the projects, Bhakra- Nangal and Beas Projects, are the State Projects conceived planned, constructed, developed and operated and are being maintained by the participating States, namely the State of Rajasthan and the composite State of Punjab, and these two States as partners of the projects have been sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nergy, Department of Power, Government of India and this arrangement has been ratified by the Bhakra Beas Management Board at its 76th meeting held on 28.09.1978. 38. If there is no agreement between the successor States/Union Territories of the composite State of Punjab and if there is no final order of the Central Government determining the rights and liabilities of the successor States/Union Territories of the composite State of Punjab, the only legal proceeding which can be initiated is for directing the Central Government to pass a statutory order under Section 78(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and there is no scope for any legal proceedings for recovery of damages towards the share of electricity of the Plaintiff. Issues: 39. After considering the pleadings of the parties, on 08.03.1999 this Court framed a large number of issues. Thereafter, the Plaintiff examined three witnesses, namely, Shri A.K. Go swami, the Chief Secretary of the State of Himachal Pradesh, Dr. Y.K. Murthy, Ex-Chief Engineer- cum-Secretary (MPP & Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, and Shri Prabodh Saxena, Deputy Commissioner to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The Defenda....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst the Defendants jointly and severally, as compensation/reimbursement for their failure to supply to the Plaintiff 12% and 7.19% shares (on account of distress caused/surrender of rights to generate power and on account of transfer of population to the Plaintiff State respectively in the power generated in these projects upto the date of the filing of the present suit and such further sums as may be determined, as entitlement of the Plaintiff for the period subsequent to the filing of the suit? (Plaintiff) 11. Whether the Plaintiff-State is entitled to the award of any interest on the amounts determined as its entitlement? (Plaintiff) We may now deal with each of these issues separately. Issue No. 1 41. Mr. Mohan Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Defendant Nos. 1 and 5, submitted that the Bhakra-Nangal Project was completed in 1963 and the Beas Project was completed in 1977, whereas the suit has been filed in the year 1996 and, therefore, the suit is belated and barred by limitation. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for Defendant No. 4, cited the decision in U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and Anr. (2006) 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay the Dominion Government will be competent to exercise the said powers, authority and jurisdiction in such manner and through such agency as it may think fit. It is thus clear that by the Bilaspur Merger Agreement dated 15.08.1948 the Raja of Bilaspur ceded to the Dominion Government full and exclusive authority, jurisdiction and powers for and in relation to the governance of the State and agreed to transfer the administration of the State to the Dominion Government on 12.10.1948. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Law, issued a notification dated 20.07.1949 (Ext. D-4/2-A) in exercise of its powers under Section 290 -A of the Government of India Act, 1935 making the States Merger (Chief Commissioners Provinces) Order, 1949, which came into force from 01.08.1949. Under this States Merger (Chief Commissioners Provinces) Order, 1949, Bilaspur was to be administered in all respects as if it was a Chief Commissioner's Province. Under the Constitution of India also initially Bilaspur continued to be administered as the Chief Commissioner's Province and was included in the First Schedule of the Constitution as a Part-C State. Under Article 294(b) all rights, li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute- (a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or (b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or (c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends: (Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which, having been entered into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution, continues in operation after such commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute.) 363. Bar to interference by courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc. - (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution but subject to the provisions of article 143, neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction in any dispute arising out of any provision of a tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration after such commencement, or in any dispute in respect of any right accruing under or any liability or obligation arising out of any of the provisions of this Constitution relating to any such treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument. These being the clear constitutional provisions, obviously this Court will have no jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution to decide any dispute arising out of any agreement or covenant between the Raja of Bilaspur and the Government of the Dominion of India. The only agreement proved to have been executed by the Raja of Bilaspur and the Government of the Dominion of India before the commencement of the Constitution is the Bilaspur Merger Agreement (Ext. D-4/1A) and on a close examination of the provisions of the Bilaspur Merger Agreement dated 15.08.1948, we find that there are no provisions therein which have any relevance to the claim of the Plaintiff to the share of the Plaintiff to the power generated in the Bhakra- Nangal and Beas Projects. The draft agreement dated 07.07.1948, however, has provisions in clause 13 for allocation of power to the Bilaspur State, but this draft agreement is not pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... barred under Article 262(2) of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, what is necessary to be found out is whether the assertions made in the plaint and the relief sought for, by any stretch of imagination, can be held to be a water dispute so as to oust the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution and on examining the assertions made in the plaint and the relief sought for by the Plaintiff-State, the Constitution Bench took the view that the suit in that case could not be held to be barred under Article 262 of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. This decision in State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh was followed by this Court in State of Haryana v. State of Punjab and Anr. (supra) and it was held that the question of maintainability of the suit has to be decided upon the assertions made by the Plaintiffs and the relief sought for, and taking the totality of the same and not by spinning up one paragraph of the plaint and then deciding the matter. Applying this test to the present case, we find on a reading of the assertions made in the entire plaint as well as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ominion of India and was administered as the Chief Commissioner's Province and was included as a Part- C State is the First Schedule of the Constitution. In 1954 Bilaspur and Himachal Pradesh however, were united to form a new State of Himachal Pradesh under the Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New States) Act, 1954. This new State of Himachal Pradesh continued to be a Part-C State until it became a Union Territory by the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956. It is when Himachal Pradesh was a Union Territory that the State of Punjab and the State of Rajasthan entered into an agreement on 13.01.1959 (Ext.D- 1/3) to collaborate in the construction of a Dam across the river Sutlej at Bhakra and other ancillary works executed under the Bhakra-Nangal Project for the improvement of irrigation and generation of Hydro-electric power and as per the terms and conditions of this agreement, the power generated in Bhakra-Nangal Project was to be shared between Punjab and Rajasthan in the ratio of 84.78% and 15.22% respectively. The Plaintiff's case in the plaint is that the construction of the Bhakra Dam across the river Satluj has resulted in submergence of large areas of Himachal Prad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provisions of the Constitution, the executive power of the Union shall extend to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws and from Article 246(4) of the Constitution which states that Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included in a State notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List. In other words, in 1959 when the agreement was made between the States of Punjab and Rajasthan to construct the Bhakra Dam across the river Satluj which would have the effect of submerging large areas within Himachal Pradesh, it is the Union of India which had the right over the water and land in Himachal Pradesh and if the Union of India has, in exercise of its constitutional powers acquiesced in the construction of the Dam at Bhakra over river Satluj, the Plaintiff-State can have no cause of action to make a claim to power from the Bhakra-Nangal Project on the basis of submergence of large areas of Himachal Pradesh on account of the construction of the Bhakra Dam. 53. We further find that in 1960-1961 when Himachal Pradesh was a Union Territory, the State of Punjab and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are not affected by the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Hence, on the basis of the statutory right and the constitutional right of the Plaintiff to utilization of power from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects from out of the share of composite State of Punjab prior to the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, the Plaintiff- State has no cause of action to file a suit against the State of Rajasthan. In other words, since the Plaintiff-State has no legal right to claim a share of power from the Bhakra- Nangal and Beas Projects from out of the share of power of the State of Rajasthan, the Plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit against the State of Rajasthan (Defendant No. 4), but since the Plaintiff-State has a legal right to utilization of power out of the total share of power of the composite State of Punjab from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects as a successor State, the Plaintiff has cause of action to file the suit and to maintain the suit as against Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 5. Moreover, as under Section 78(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 the Central Government was required to determine by an order the rights of the Plaintiff to utilization of power from the B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eas-Sutlej Link Project (Unit I) comprising- (a)Pandoh Dam and works appurtenant thereto. (b) Pandoh-Baggi Tunnel, (c) Sundernagar-Hydel Channel, (d) Sundernagar-Sutlej Tunnel, (e) By-pass Tunnel, (f) four generating units each of 165 M.W. capacity at Dehar Power House on the right side of Sutlej river, (g) fifth generating unit of 120 M.W. capacity at Bhakra Right Bank Power House, (h) transmission lines, (i) Balancing Reservoir; (ii) Pong Dam Project (Unit II) comprising- (a) Pong Dam and works appurtenant thereto, (b) Outlet Works, (c) Penstock Tunnels, (d) Power plant with four generating units of 60 M.W. each; (iii) such other works as are ancillary to the works aforesaid and are of common interest to more than one State; (B) "Bhakra-Nangal Project" means- (i) Bhakra Dam, Reservoir and works appurtenant thereto; (ii) Nangal Dam and Nangal-Hydel Channel; (iii) Bhakra Main Line and canal system; (iv) Bhakra Left Bank Power House, Ganguwal Power House and Kotla Power House, switchyards, sub- stations an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b will be fixed according to an agreement between the successor States. But, as we will discuss under Issue No. 7, there is no such final agreement between the successor States with regard to the share of power generated in the Bhakra- Nangal and Beas Projects and there is only a `tentative, ad hoc or interim arrangement' arrived at in the meeting held on 17.04.1967. We may add here that even when this suit was pending before this Court, an order was passed by this Court on 29.04.2010 directing the Union of India to make a final effort to bring all the parties to the dispute to the negotiating table and by acting as a meaningful mediator attempt to find a solution which is mutually acceptable to all the parties and the case was adjourned for three months to enable the parties to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution with the guidance of the Union Government, but an affidavit was filed in the Court on behalf of the Central Government stating that a Secretary level meeting was held with the stakeholder States but a settlement could not be arrived at, as the stakeholder States stuck to their respective claiMs. It is in these circumstances only that the Court has proceeded to he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the parties mentioned therein if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. Hence, this Court has jurisdiction not only to decide any question on which the existence of a legal right depends but also to decide any dispute involving any question on which the extent of a legal right depends. We, therefore, have the jurisdiction to decide the extent to which Plaintiff-State would be entitled to receive and utilize the power generated in the Bhakra- Nangal and Beas Projects. In other words, the suit of the Plaintiff is not barred by the scheme of Sections 78 to 80 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Issue No. 6 is answered accordingly. Issue No. 7 60. Mr. Mohan Jain, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for Defendant No. 1 and Mr. Shyam Diwan, learned Counsel for Defendant No. 2, submitted that Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, provides that the rights and liabilities in regard to Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects of the successor States of the composite State of Punjab shall be in such proportion as may b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding the formation of two separate Electricity Boards for Haryana and Punjab and related matters have been circulated by a memorandum dated 27.04.1967 of the Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation and Power, marked as Ex.D-1/6. Para 3 of the summary discussions which records the alleged agreement between the successor States with regard to allocation of assets and liabilities in relation to the Bhakra-Nangal Project and the Beas Project is extracted hereinbelow: Shri Nawab Singh stated that a decision on the tentative allocation of assets and liabilities of Punjab and Haryana had been taken earlier on the basis of 58%: 42%. Now the shares of the Union Territories of Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh had to be decided. He further stated that at a meeting held in this regard recently an agreement had been reached on the allocation of a share of 3.5% to Chandigarh and 2.5% to Himachal Pradesh and the remaining, ratio of 58:42. On this basis, the shares of the four constituents would become as under: Punjab 54.5% Haryana 39.5% Chandigarh 3.5% Himachal Pradesh 2.5% The above percentages were agreed to the Power Houses, sub-stations, Transmis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e evidence that by a letter dated 20.03.1978 addressed by the Ministry of Energy, Government of India to Shri Shanta Kumar, Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh, 15 MW of power has been allotted on `ad hoc basis' to Himachal Pradesh pending a final decision of the concerned States if Himachal Pradesh was agreeable to the proportionate cost of the project. In an another subsequent letter dated 16.08.1983 of the Government of India, Ministry of Energy (Department of Power) to the Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, marked as Ex.P-48, it is expressly stated: The quantum of benefits from Bhakra and Beas projects presently allocated to these two areas on an ad hoc basis will remain unaltered until a final decision is taken on the sharing of the rights and liabilities of all the successor states in the two projects. The documentary evidence before the Court, therefore, clearly establishes that the allocation of power to Himachal Pradesh to the extent of 2.45% of the share of the power of the composite State of Punjab from both Bhakra and Beas Projects was `tentative and ad hoc' and not final. There is, in other words, no final agreement between the successor States ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... marked as Ext. P-8, to show how in the case of other projects, namely, the Periyar Project in the Madras State and the Muchkund Project in Orissa State benefits have been given to the State whose resources are affected on account of the construction of hydro-electric project. He also referred to the views of the Vice-Chairman of the Central Water and Power Commission in his communication dated 02.05.1968, marked as Ext. P-10, suggesting that the Himachal Pradesh should be made an active partner of the Hydro-Electric Project borne by it by paying to Himachal Pradesh the annual royalties based on actual utilization of the water, power rights. He argued that all these materials clearly show that Himachal Pradesh is entitled to 12% free power from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects by virtue of it being the Mother State or the Home State and by virtue of loss of its land and water on account of the Bhakra and Beas Projects. 64. Mr. Shyam Diwan, learned counsel for the Defendant No. 2, submitted that this claim of the Plaintiff to 12% free power is based upon a notion that Himachal Pradesh has some pre-existing or natural rights over its land and water. He submitted that under Arti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstitution and Article 294(b) of the Constitution, the Raja of Bilaspur lost all rights first to the Dominion of India and thereafter to the Government of India and that the Plaintiff, therefore, could not have any cause of action to make any claim on the basis of any right of Raja of Bilaspur prior to the merger of the Bilaspur State with the Dominion of India. The Plaintiff, therefore, cannot claim any free power because of loss of land and water by the Raja of Bilaspur. We have also held while answering Issue No. 5 that in 1959 when the States of Punjab and Rajasthan agreed to construct the Bhakra Dam, Himachal Pradesh was a Union Territory and the executive and legislative power over water and land under Entries 17 and 18 of List- II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution vested in the Union of India and the Union of India in exercise of its constitutional powers acquiesced in the construction of the Dam at Bhakra over river Satluj. We have also held while answering to Issue No. 5 that in 1960-1961 when the Himachal Pradesh was a Union Territory, the States of Punjab and Rajasthan also decided to collaborate and undertake the execution of the Beas Project and the Governme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enerated" figures for the purpose will be calculated at the bus bar level, i.e. after discounting the auxiliary consumption but without taking into account the transmission line losses and (c) The remaining power (73%) would be distributed between the States of region (including the Home State) on the basis of Central Assistance given to various States in the region during the last five years and on the basis of consumption of electricity in the States in the region in the last five years, the two factors being given equal weightage. 2. This revised formula would be applicable in respect of those Central Sector Hydro Electric Projects in whose case sanction for investment decision is issued after 12.02.1985. 3. The Cabinet has also approved the concept of Joint ventures between the Union and one or more State Government for implementation of hydro-electric projects in such projects, the partner State/States would be entitled to the supply of quantity of power proportionate to their investment, at bus bar rates, after supply of 12; free power to the Home State. The Centre's share of power would be distributed from such projects as per the formula for C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 to 54.84 to 7.78; (m) "successor state", in relation to the existing State of Punjab means the State of Punjab or Haryana, and includes also the Union in relation to the Union rerritory of Chandigarh and the transferred territory; (n) "transferred territory" means the territory which on the appointed day is transferred from the existing State of Punjab to the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh; Section 5. Transfer of territory from Punjab to Himachal Pradesh. - (1) On and from the appointed day, there shall be added to the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh the territories in the existing State of Punjab comprised in- (a) Simla, Kangra, Kulu and lahul and Spiti districts; (b) Nalagarh tehsil of Ambala district; (c) Lohara, Amb and Una kanungo circles of Una tehsil of Hoshiarpur district; (d) the territories in Santokhgarh kanungo circle of Una tehsil of Hoshiarpur district specified in Part I of the Third Schedule; (e) the territories in Una tehsil of Hoshiarpur district specified in part II of the Third Schedule; and (f) the territories of Dhar Kalan Kanungo circle of Pathankot tehsil of Gurdaspur district....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Union, in relation to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. 72. Mr. Ganguli, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, submitted that it will be clear from Clause (i) of para 7 of the State of Himachal Pradesh (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Order, 1972 that the population ratio in relation to the States of Haryana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh is Haryana: 37.38%, Punjab: 54.84, Himachal Pradesh: 7.19% and Chandigarh: 0.59%. He argued that on the basis of such population ratio, the Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to 7.19% of the total power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects as a successor State of the composite State of Punjab. He submitted that the allocation of only 2.5% of the power from Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects to the State of Himachal Pradesh as compared to the allocation of 54.5% to Punjab and 39.5; to Haryana and 3.5% to Chandigarh, is in violation of the right of the Plaintiff-State to equal treatment. He submitted that the Plaintiff has, therefore, sent by the letter dated 22.10.1969, produced and marked as Ext. P- 12, to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, claiming a shar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igation and generation of Hydro- electric power". Clause 9(2) of the agreement dated 13.01.1959 (Ext. D-1/3) provides that the shares of the Punjab and Rajasthan in the stored water supplies was to be 84.78% and 15.22% respectively and Clause 32 of this agreement provides that each party shall contribute to the capital cost of the electrical portion of the project in proportion to the share of either party in the stored water supply. Thus, the capital cost contributed by the composite State of Punjab for construction of the Hydro- electric project of Bhakra-Nangal was 84.78% and this capital cost was borne by the composite State of Punjab as a whole including the transferred territory which formed part of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Similarly, we find on a reading of the record of decisions arrived at the inter-State Conference on development and utilization of the waters of the rivers Ravi and Beas held on 25.01.1955 marked as Ext. D-4/10 as well as the minutes of the 6th meeting of the Beas Central Board held on 13.12.1963 marked as Ex. D-4/15 that 85% of the capital cost of Unit-I and 32% of the capital cost of Unit- II of Beas Project were to be met by the composite State of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....% UT of Chandigarh 3.5% Punjab 51.8% Haryana 37.51% Therefore, the entitlement of the Plaintiff out of the total production will be as under: Project Entitlement in total production With effect from (i) Bhakra-Nangal(7.19% of 84.78%) 6.095% 01.11.1966 (date of re-organisation) (ii) Beas I (7.19% of 80%) 5.752% From the date of commencement of Production (iii) Beas II(7.19% of 41.5%) 2.984% From the date of commencement of Production From the above entitlement, what has been received by the Plaintiff in regard to Bhakra-Nangal and Beas I have to be deducted for the purpose of finding out the amount due to the Plaintiff-State from the States of Punjab and Haryana upto October, 2011. Issue No. 10 78. On the basis of its entitlement to 7.19% of the total power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects, the Plaintiff has filed Statements I and III. These statements, however, are disputed by the Defendants in their written statements. The Defendant No. 1-Union of India will have to work out the details of the claim of the Plaintiff-State on the basis of the entitlements of the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 2 and Def....