SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and S.N. Phukan, JJ.

Writ Petitions (C) No. 754 of 1992 with No. 112 of 1993. D/d. 24.1.2000.

Ranganathan and another - Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and others - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- R. Ayyam Perumal, S. Muralidhar, Neeru Vaid and S. Vaidialingam, Advocates.

For the Respondent :- K.R. Nagaraja, K.K. Tyagi, Ms. Shalini Bhalla, Ms. Abhilasha, M. Veerappa, A. Mariaputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Romy Chacko and P. Parameswaran, Advocates.

Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, Sections 5, 6 and 11 - Cauvery Water Dispute - Riots - Incidents arising in Karnataka to be inquired into by Karnataka authority whereas incidents occurring in State of Tamil Nadu to be inquired into by authority of Tamil Nadu irrespective of the fact where the victims are residing.

[Para ]

Cases Referred :-

Ranganathan v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 26.

ORDER

S. Rajendra Babu, J. - We made an order on 15-4-1999, Ranganathan v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 26, constituting certain relief authorities in the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and formulated a scheme for compensation and resolution of the claims that may be filed before them. Now a letter has been sent by the Chairman, Cauvery Riots Relief Authority of the State of Tamil Nadu on 11-10-1999 seeking clarification whether that authority can deal with claims of victims of riots in Karnataka who have now settled down in Tamil Nadu or in Pondicherry. It is clear from the order made and the scheme formulated by us earlier that in the case of 8 incidents arising in Karnataka, Karnataka authority will have to inquire into the same while in relation to the incidents that have occurred in the State of Tamil Nadu, the authority in Tamil Nadu will have to inquire into the same irrespective of the fact where the victims may reside. If the authority concerned has received any of the claims in relation to the incidents that have taken place in other States, the appropriate authority will have to transfer those applications to that particular authority which has to inquire into the matter in terms of our order. We hardly think that there was any justification for the Chairman, Cauvery Riots Relief Authority of the State of Tamil Nadu to have made this references inasmuch as our order, made earlier, is very clear. Nevertheless, we clear the doubt in the mind of the Chairman.

2. No other orders are required to be passed at this stage. Office report is ordered accordingly.

Court Masters.

.