TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 1197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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. In 1954, Bilaspur and Himachal Pradesh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing 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 the successor States/Union Territories. As 7.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 failure on the part of the Central Government to determine the share of the plaintiff in the power generated in the two projects, the plai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the share of power of the composite State of Punjab from the two projects would be as follows: Punjab 54.5% Haryana 39.5% Chandigarh 3.5% Himachal Pradesh 2.5% This agreement w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-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 Plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. In terms of Section 78(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, the representatives of the successor States/Union Territories of the composite State of Punjab hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssors 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 also been made for their resettlement. Moreover, the creation of big reservoir has provided Himachal Pradesh the facilities of fish, farming and increase in tourism potential. Written statement by Defendant No. 3 (State of Haryana) 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. Written statement of the Defendant No. 4 (State of Rajasthan) 28. Under an agreement made on 15.08.1948 between the then Governor General of India and the Raja of Bilaspur, the administration of Bilaspur State was transferred to the Dominio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gal 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 sharing power from the two projects on the basis of agreements executed between them. 32. The dispute raised in the suit relates to the share of water and generation of power from the use of water in inter-state rivers and this Court has no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te 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 Defendant No. 2 examined one witness, namely, Shri Romesh Chandra Bansal, Consultant of Punjab State Electricity Board on Inter State Disputes) and Defendant No. 3 examined one witness, namely, Shri Jia Lal Jain, Chief Accounts Officer in Haryana State Electricity Bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 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 SCC 464 in which this Court has held that a party would not be entitled to relief if he has not been vigilant in invoking the protection of his rights and has acquiesced with the changed situation. He submitted that in the present case, the Plaintiff-State has acquiesced in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects and the sharing of power from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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, liabilities and obligations of the Government of the Dominion of India, whether arising out of any contract or otherwise, became the rights, liabilities and obligations of the Government of India. These provisions of the Bilaspur Merger Agreement dated 15.08.1948 (Ext.D-4/1-A), the States Merger (Chief Commissioners Provinces) Order, 1949, the First Schedule of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w 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 treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which was entered into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution by any Ruler of an Indian State and to which the Government of the Dominion of India or any of its predecessor Governments was a party and which has or has been continued in operation after such commencement, or in any dispute in respect of any right accruing under or any l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 proved to have been executed on behalf of the parties thereto and cannot constitute a basis for allocation of power to the Plaintiff-State. However, we have already held that the claim of the Plaintiff-State is based also on the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and the provisions of the Constitution and such claim is not barred under Article 363 of the Constitution. This issue is answered accordingly. Issue No. 4 48. Issue No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ought 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 the reliefs claimed therein by the Plaintiff that the dispute does not relate to a dispute in relation to inter state river water or the use thereof, and actually relates to sharing of power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and the Beas Projects and such a dispute was not barred under clause (2) of Article 262 of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter- State Water Disputes Act, 1956. Issue No. 5 50. Mr. Nageshwar Rao, l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titution (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 Pradesh and its rights have been affected by the construction of the Bhakra Dam. According to Mr. Ganguli, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff, the legal rights of the Plaintiff which have been affected by the construction of the Bhakra-Nangal Project are the (a) natural right to the beneficial use of the water; (b) rights under the agreement executed with the Raja of Bilaspur and (c) constitutional rights of Himachal Prades....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en 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 State of Rajasthan decided to collaborate and undertake the execution of Beas Project including all connected works in Punjab, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. The Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation and Power, also adopted a resolution on 10.02.1961 (Ext.D-1/7) constituting the Beas Control Board for ensuring efficient, economical and early execution of the Beas Project (comprising Unit-I - Beas Satluj Link and Unit-II the Dam ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects and the Central Government has not done so, the Plaintiff-State has cause of action to file the suit against the Defendant No. 1. Issue No. 5 is answered accordingly. Issue Nos. 6 55. For deciding issue No. 6, a reference to Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 is necessary. 78. Rights and liabilities in regard to Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (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 and transmission lines; (v) Bhakra Right Bank Power House with four units of 120 M.W. each. 56. Mr. Shyam Diwan, leaned counsel appearing for the Defendant No. 2, submitted that Section 78(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 starts with the non-obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act". He argued that considering these opening words in Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, no other provisions of the Act should be looked into by the Court and the rights and liabilities of the successor State of the composite State of Punjab in regard to Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 hear and decide the suit. 58. We have also perused the decision of the Federal Court in United Provinces v. Governor-General in Council (supra) cited by Mr. Diwan and we find that Sulaiman and Varadachariar, JJ. have taken a view that the term `legal right' used in Section 204 of the Government of India Act, 1935 means a right recognized by law and capable of being enforced by the power of a State, but not necessarily in a Court of Law. Section 78(1) by its plain language states that all rights and liabilities of the existing State of Punjab in relation to Bhakra-Nangal Project and Beas Project shall, on the appointed d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 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 be fixed by an agreement entered into by the successor States after consultation with the Central Government or, if no such agreement is entered into within two years of the appointed day, as the Central Government may by order determine having regard to the purposes of the Projects. They submitted that the rights and liabilities of the successor States in regard to Bhakra-Nangal Project have already been fixed by the agreement dated 17.04.1967. 61. Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, on the other hand, submitted that no agreement whatsoever in terms of Section 78(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w 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, Transmission Lines will, of course, be owned on the basis of location etc. as per distribution shown in Annexure-I. It was further decided that the depreciation accrued and loans raised for any particular fixed asset would be allocated along with the asset itself as per Annexure-I and that the distribution systems and other small lengths of transmission lines, sub- stations etc. not included in the list will go to the successor States on location basis. It will be clear that the decision on the `tentative' allocation of asset and liabilities of Punjab and Haryana had been taken first and this was 58% for Punjab and 42% for Haryana and the shares of Chandigarh and Him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c 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 of the composite State of Punjab with regard to the rights and liabilities of the successor States including the right to the power generated in the Bhakra and Beas Projects in terms of Section 78(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Issue No. 7 is answered accordingly. Issue No. 8 63. Mr. Ganguli, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, submitted that the territorial integrity of Bilaspur State could not be affected by submergence on account of construction of Bhakra Dam without the consent of the Bilaspur State and the Raja of Bilaspur while giving such consent, incorporated in the draft agreement various conditions such as payment of royalty and transfer of power to Bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terials 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 Article 3 of the Constitution Parliament has power to form a new State, increase the area of any State, diminish the area of any State, alter the boundaries of any State and alter the name of any State and, therefore, States in India are not indestructible and the territorial integrity of the States can be destroyed by Parliament by law. He argued that the whole notion of Himachal Pradesh having any rights over its land and water apart from what is given by Parliament by law is thus alien to the Indian Constitution. He submitted that the State of Himachal Pradesh cannot have any right dehors the Punjab Reoganisation Act, 1966 made under Article 3 of the Constitution. In supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 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 Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation & Power, in fact, adopted a resolution on 10.02.1961 constituting the Beas Control Board for early execution of the Beas Project. Thus, at the time of the Bhakra-Nangal Project and the Beas Project were executed, Himachal Pradesh was not a full fledged State having the rights and powers under Articles 162 and 246(3) of the Constitution over its land and water under Entries 17 and 18 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and it was the Union of India which had such rights and powers over the land and water in Himachal Pradesh by virtue of the provisions of Article 73 and Article 246(4) of the Constitution. 67. The State Reorganis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....binet 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 Central Sector Hydro Electric Projects, i.e. 15% to be reserved with the Centre as unallocated share and the balance to be distributed between the States of the region on the basis of two factors enumerated in (c) of para (1) above. With regards, Yours faithfully, Sd/- (K. Padmanabhaiah) Shri Kailash Chand Mahajan, Chairman, H.P. State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan 69. It will be crystal clear from the aforesaid letter dated 22.07.1985 that the formula of supply of 12% free power from the energy generated by a power station to the Home State is applicable to Central Sector Hydro-Electric Projects and with effect from 12.02.1985 the Union Cabinet has made this applicable to Joint Ventures between the Union and one or more Stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pur 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 specified in Part III of the Third Schedule, and thereupon the said territories shall cease to form part of the existing State of Punjab. (2) The territories referred to in Clause (b) of sub section (1) shall be included in, and form part of Simla district. (3) The territories referred to in clauses (c), and (d) and (e) of Sub-section (1) shall be included in and form part of Kangra district, and (i) the territories referred to in Clauses (c) and (d) shall form a separate tehsil known as Una tehsil in that district and in that tehsil the territories referred to in clause (d) shall form a seperate kanungo circle known as the Santokhgarh kanungo circle; and (ii) the territories referred to in clause (e) shall form part of the Hamirpur tehsil in the said district. (4) The territories referred to in Clause (f) of sub- section (1) shall be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 share to the extent of 7.19% of the total benefits from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects on the basis of transfer of 7.19% of the population of the composite Punjab State to Himachal Pradesh along with the transferred territory, but the Central Government has not passed any order as yet granting the Plaintiff its share of 7.19% of the power generated from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects on the basis of the ratio of population transferred to the Plaintiff-State along with the transferred territory. 73. Mr. Mohan Jain, learned ASG appearing for the Defendant No. 1 and Mr. Shyam Diwan appearing for Defendant No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that since there was an agreement between the successor States arrived at in the meeting held on 17.04.1967 and this agreement was entered into within two years stipulated in Section 78(1) of the Punjab Reorgansiation Act, 1966 and was binding on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ters 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 Punjab as a whole including the transferred territory which formed part of the State of Himachal Pradesh. 76. The purposes of the Bhakra-Nangal and the Beas Projects, therefore, were to benefit the entire composite State of Punjab including the transferred territory which became part of Himachal Pradesh. If the ratio of the population of this transferred territory vis-à-vis the composite State of Punjab was 7.19% and the transferred territory as detailed in Section 5 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 extracted above was not small, allocation of only 7.19% of the share of power of the composite State of Punjab generated in the Bhakra- Nangal and Beas Projects was only fair and equitable. The allocation of only 2.5% of the total share of the power of the composite State of Punjab generated in the two Projects to Himachal Pradesh has been made on the basis of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 Defendant No. 3 in the tables in Paragraph 77 above as well as all other rights and liabilities of the Plaintiff-State, the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and file a statement in this Court stating the amount due to the Plaintiff from Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 upto October, 2011. Issue No. 11 79. Since the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have utilized power in excess of what was due to them under law, we also hold that the Plaintiff-State will be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% on the amounts determined by the Union of India to be due from Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. 80. Reliefs: (i) The suit is decreed in part against Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and dismissed against Defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5. (ii) It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff-State is entitled to 7.19% of the power of the composite State of Punjab from the Bhakra-Nangal Project with effect from 01.11.....