Order
1. The suit filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh is set down for arguments. The plaintiff submits that primarily three questions arise for consideration in this suit. The first is entitlement of the plaintiff to 12% of the net power generated (after deducting certain standard losses from the total power generated) in the Bhakra Nangal Project and Beas Project, free of cost from the date of commissioning of those projects. The second is entitlement of the plaintiff to 7.19% of the power generated in the Bhakra Nangal Project and Beas Project from 1-11-1966 (or from the date of commissioning of the project whichever is later) out of the share of the then composite State of Punjab on account of transfer of population along with certain territory to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The third is the entitlement of the plaintiff State to compensation in the sum of Rs 2199.77 crores from the defendants, said to be the rightful share from the power generated in the Bhakra Nangal and Beas Projects from 1-11-1966.
2. The defendants (State of Punjab, State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan) have denied and disputed the claims and submitted that the matters are covered by agreements/arrangements which are already in place and which have attained finality. They also submit that there is no legal basis for the first claim for 12% of the net power generated.
3. The matter also involves decision on the binding nature of the agreement said to have been reached on 17-4-1967 and the arrangement that was entered on 30-3-1978. While the plaintiff State submits that these were tentative, the defendants contend that except in regard to Beas Project, Unit II, other issues are already decided.
4. Having regard to the nature of the disputes, grievances, problems, and hardships of the States involved, we are of the view that before the matter is examined on merits, the Union of India should make a final effort to bring all the parties to the dispute to the negotiation table and by acting as a meaningful mediator attempt to find a solution which is mutually acceptable to all the parties.
5. We, therefore, adjourn the matter by three months to enable the parties to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution, with the guidance of the Union Government. We do hope that the parties would approach the problem with a view to settle it rather than stand on their formal legal stands which may come in the way of settlement. What we have stated above shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the claims and contentions of any of the parties in the suit. The Central Government shall initiate action by convening a meeting of all the States concerned within three weeks from today.
Court Masters