CASE BRIEF
Appellants- State of Himachal Pradesh
Respondents- Union of India & Ors.
Decided On: 27/09/2011
Statues Referred-
- Constitution of India
- Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966
Case Referred-
- U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Anr. [(2006) 11 SCC 464]
- Union of India and Another [AIR 1951 SC 253]
Facts:
- Bhakra dam was proposed in the year 1944 on the river satluj in the state of Bilaspur.
- Bhakra dam gave a lot of benefits to the nation and specially to the defendants.
- In the state of Bilaspur it led to the submergence 27,869 acres of land out of 41600 acres.
Issue:
- As the plaintiff state is a successor state and the dam are covering more area of the plaintiff state than the other states. The plaintiff state demands more electricity as for the compensation of the land and dislocation of people for the construction of the dam.
- The plaintiff state was entitled 7.19% of the total power and was receiving only 2.45% on temporary agreement basis.
Contentions by Parties-
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The first is to entitle the 12% of the net power generated (after subtracting the losses from total power).
- To entitle the 7.19% of the power generated in the Bhakra Nangal project and Beas project from 1-11-1966 (or when the project was commenced whichever is earlier).
- To entitle the plaintiff state the amount of Rs. 2199.77 crores from the defendants. As their share from Bhakra Nangal and Beas projects from 1-11-1966.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The defendants have rejected and argued the that the subject matter is already covered in the agreement. The claim of 12% of the power generated is on no lawful basis.
Judgment
Since Defendants 2 and 3 utilized power in excess of what was due to them under law, it is also held that plaintiff State will be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% on amounts determined by Union of India to be due from Defendants 2 and 3 till date of payment (from 1-11-1966 in case of Bhakra Nangal Project and from dates of production in case of Beas Project).
Rule of Law-
Law is supreme. And no one is above law.
Conclusion
As the defendants states have consumed excess power that was decided by under the law, the plaintiff state will be entitled to the amount at the interest rate of 6% determined by the union of India to be due from defendants state 2 &3.