REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. NO. 5 OF 2011  in  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) No(s).5822 OF 2006

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)