Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit filed by the State of Punjab against the State of Haryana regarding the construction of the Hansi Branch – Bhutana Branch Multipurpose Channel project. Punjab sought a decree of perpetual injunction to restrain Haryana from proceeding with the project, claiming it would adversely affect its territory and population. The suit was filed under Article 131 of the Constitution on July 11, 2007, and the court had previously issued an injunction against Haryana's actions. During the proceedings, Punjab filed an interlocutory application seeking to restrain further construction, arguing that it would lead to increased backwater flow and flooding in Punjab, particularly in 70 villages. Haryana countered that the construction was necessary to prevent flooding in its own territory, citing past incidents of flooding and damage. The court analyzed the topography and historical context of the region, noting that the Bandh was constructed to prevent flooding in Haryana. It found that the strengthening work proposed by Haryana was essential to protect its citizens and that the apprehensions of Punjab were based on hypothetical scenarios. Ultimately, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favored Haryana, leading to the rejection of Punjab's interlocutory application.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Inter-State Water Disputes - Balance of Convenience - Article 131 of the Constitution - The court found that the balance of convenience favored the State of Haryana in allowing construction to prevent flooding, as opposed to the apprehensions raised by the State of Punjab regarding potential flooding. The court held that the State of Haryana has the right and duty to protect its citizens from floods (Paras 19-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State of Punjab is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the State of Haryana from constructing a toe wall and providing concrete lining on the embankment of the Hansi Branch – Bhutana Branch Multipurpose Channel.
Final Decision
The court rejected the interlocutory application filed by the State of Punjab, determining that the balance of convenience favored the State of Haryana, which had the right to protect its citizens from flooding.
Law Points
- Article 131 of the Constitution
- Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules
- 1966
- cooperative federalism
- inter-State water disputes
- injunctions
