Kachchh Jal Sankat Nivaran Samiti & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Anr
- SCC(2013) 12 SCC 234
- AIRAIR 2011 SC 2747
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Allocation of water from dams and canals among different regions within a State is not a subject-matter of judicial review as it involves complex social and economic considerations, delicate balancing of interests, and administrative judgment that courts are not equipped to undertake; such matters must be left to the executive authorities to decide.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
KACHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI & ORS. Petitioner(s)/ Applicant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the
applicant(s)/petitioner(s).
This interlocutory application for directions is
filed in the special leave petition. The special leave
petition has been filed against the judgment of the Gujarat
High Court dated 04.10.2005 dismissing the writ petition
filed by way of Public Interest Litigation. The prayer in
the Writ Petition related to the alleged grievance of meagre
allocation of water from Sardar Sarovar Dam by the State
Government of Gujarat to the district of Kuchchh which is
alleged to constitute 1/4th of the total area of the State of
Gujarat and is alleged to be a drought prone district.
By means of the impugned judgment the Division
Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding
that there are no judicially manageable standards
for :1:
adjudication for allocation of water in favour of any region
within the State. The Government is the best judge to decide
how much water should be released from the Narmada Canal to
Kuchchh and how much water is to be left for other regions.
All these decisions require delicate balancing and
consideration of complex social and economical
considerations which cannot be brought under the judicial
scrutiny. In fact, the State Government has accepted the
decision of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal which cannot
be said to be arbitrary.
Now, this interlocutory application for interim
directions has been filed with the following prayers :-
"(a) to appoint a committee comprising of experts to go into the pros and cons of various alternative systems of mode of conveyance of Narmada waters through Kachchh Branch Canal to the region of Kachchh with reference to cost benefit ratio and other relevant aspects and be further please to direct the committee to submit a detailed report in this regard to the Hon'ble Court, and this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass further appropriate orders on receipt of such expert report.
(b) restrain the respondents from commencing the construction of proposed Kachchh Branch Canal until the aforesaid exercise is completed by this Hon'ble Court.
(c) direct the respondents to consider the relative cost advantage among various methods for transportation of water through Kuchchh Branch Canal.
(d) direct the respondents to consider the relative cost advantage in transporting water through Kuchchh Branch by pipeline as suggested by CWC.
:2: (e) direct the respondents to present facts and
figures on the basis of which the decision to transport the water through Kuchchh Branch Canal has been arrived at by the respondents."
We are of the opinion that the prayer for allocation
of adequate water in Kuchchh district is not one which can
be a matter of judicial review. It is for the executive
authorities to look into this matter. As held by this Court
in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. Vs.
Chander Hass & Anr. (2008) 1 SCC 683, there must be
judicial restraint in such matters.
For the reasons above stated, we are not inclined to
grant any of the prayers made in the interlocutory
application. The interlocutory application is dismissed
accordingly.
..........................J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)
NEW DELHI; ..........................J. JULY 22, 2011 (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free