Summary of the Order/Judgment:
The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal evolved two schemes in its Report and Further Report- Scheme A and Scheme B, but did not make Scheme B part of the Final Order as for its implementation the setting up of Krishna Valley Authority was necessary which Andhra Pradesh had not agreed to. The Central Government thus did not publish Scheme B as part of the decision of the Tribunal as per Section 5(2) of the 1956 Act.
Andhra Pradesh filed the suit under Article 131 for the following reliefs:
a) That the surplus water in Krishna be utilised as per the determinations of the Tribunal in its Report and Further Report.
b) A mandatory injunction against the Central Government to notify scheme B in the Official Gazette under section 6 of the 1956 Act and to set up the Krishna Valley Authority.
c) Injunction to stop Andhra Pradesh from continuing to execute projects till proper implementation of Scheme B.
The Court held that:
a) Scheme 'B' does not amount to decision of the Tribunal. Tribunal never considered it to be part ofits decision for the purpose of being implemented. Every adjudication by the Tribunal will not formpart of its decision unless the adjudication is capable of being implemented on its own, which the Tribunal itself thought could not be done till the constitution of the Krishna Valley Authority was consented to. Thus, Scheme B was not required to be notified as per section 6 of the 1956 Act.
b) The jurisdiction of the Court will depend on the assertions in the plaint together with the relief sought. in Section 11 of the Act, the expression “use, distribution and control of water in any river” are the keywords in determination of the scope of power conferred on a Tribunal constituted under Section 3 of the Act. If a matter fell outside the scope of these three crucial words, the power of Section 11 in ousting the jurisdiction of the courts in respect of any water dispute, which is otherwise to be referred to the Tribunal, would not have any manner of application. The test of maintainability of a legal action initiated by a State in a court would thus be, whether the issues raised therein are referable to a Tribunal for adjudication of the manner of use, distribution and control of water.
c) The Court cannot give directions to the Centre to either constitute the Authority or frame shemes under section ^A of the 1956 Act as this would be legislative in nature and requires a certain amount of discretion to be exercised by the government.