Holding

Allocation of water to a district is a policy matter that lies with the executive and is not subject to judicial review, so the Court will not entertain the petitioner's request for an expert committee or restraining orders.

Summary

The petitioners, Kachchh Jal Sankat Nivaran Samiti & Ors., filed a public interest litigation alleging that the State of Gujarat allocated an inadequate share of water from the Sardar Sarovar Dam to the drought‑prone Kachchh district. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ, holding that water allocation is a policy decision involving complex socio‑economic considerations and is not subject to judicial scrutiny. On appeal, the petitioners sought interim relief in the form of an order appointing an expert committee to study alternative conveyance methods for the Narmada waters through the Kachchh Branch Canal, to restrain construction of the canal, and to obtain cost‑benefit data. The Supreme Court examined whether such matters are justiciable and whether it could intervene by directing an expert committee. Relying on the principle of judicial restraint articulated in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. v. Chander Hass & Anr., the Court held that allocation of water is a matter for the executive and not amenable to judicial review. Consequently, the interlocutory application for interim directions was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the allocation of water from the Sardar Sarovar Dam to Kachchh district is a matter amenable to judicial review.
Whether the Supreme Court can appoint an expert committee to examine alternative modes of water conveyance through the Kachchh Branch Canal.
Whether the Court can restrain the construction of the Kachchh Branch Canal pending the expert committee's report.

Subjects

water allocationjudicial reviewpublic interest litigationNarmada water disputeexpert committeeinterim reliefpolicy mattersenvironmental lawwater resources

Judgment

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 491

). .;,,
KACHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI & ORS. A
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
I.A. NO. 5 OF 2011
IN
4 -~ (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s).5822 of 2006) B
JULY 22, 2011

[MARKANDEY KATJU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR
PRASAD, JJ.]
c
WATER Disputes:
Narmada Waters. - Allocation of to Kachchh district -
Construction of Kachchh Branch canal - Interim application
,) in an SLP seeking to appoint a Committee of experts to
consider alternative systems of mode of conveyance of D
Narmada waters through Kachchh Branch canal to the region
of Kachchh - HELD: The prayer for a/location 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 - There must be judicial restraint in such matters E
- The Court is not inclined to grant any of the prayers made
in the interlocutory application - Application dismissed -
Interlocutory applications.
, 1 Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. Vs.
F
Chander Hass & Anr. 2007 (12) SCR 1084 = (2008) 1 SCC
683· relied on.
Case Law Reference:
2007 (12) SCR 1084 relied on para 4
-,!..
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. 5-6 of 2011. G

IN
SLP (Civil} No. 5822 of 2006.

491 H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
..
A From the Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2005 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.
3358 of 1999.
R.S. Suri, N.L. Ganpathi, K.S. Prasad, Chanchal Kumar
Ganguli for the Petitioners. ..
B
Shyam Diwan, Hemantika Wahi, Ashwini Kumar for the
Respondents.
The following order of the Court was delivered

c ORDER
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
D 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
E 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
F are no judicially manageable standards for 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
G 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.
H Now, this interlocutory application for interim directions has
~CHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI & ORS. 493
v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
~ "' been filed with the following prayers :- A
"(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
.A •
cost benefit ratio and other relevant aspects and be further B
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.
c
(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 D
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 ewe.
E
(e) direct the respondents to present facts and figures on
the basis of which the decision to transport the water

. 1
through Kuchchh Branch Canal has been arrived at by the
respondents."
We are of the opinion that the prayer for allocation of F
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,
Arava/i Golf Club & Anr. Vs. Chander Hass & Anr. (2008) 1
) sec 683, there must be judicial restraint in such matters. G

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.
R.P. lnterloculory Application dismissed. H