As the Himachal Pradesh government sought dismissal of the Punjab government’s suit against the former’s attempt to take control of Shanan Hydropower Project from the latter on the expiry of a 99-year lease, the Supreme Court on Monday said it would first hear the Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu government’s plea against maintainability of the Bhagwant Mann government’s suit.
On the expiry of the lease on March 1, the Centre had asked both the states to maintain the status quo.
“We will have to first hear the preliminary objections (raised by the Himachal Pradesh government) against the suit,” a Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal on Monday said, posting the matter for hearing on November 8.
The British-era Shanan hydropower project at Jogindernagar, 40 km from Palampur in Himachal Pradesh, was constructed in 1925 under the lease executed between Raja Joginder Sen, the ruler of the then Mandi state, and Col BC Batty, a British representative.
The project – which used to feed the undivided Punjab, Lahore and Delhi before Independence — is said to be in a poor condition as the Punjab government allegedly stopped the repair and maintenance work.
The Punjab government has filed an original suit against the government of Himachal Pradesh and the Centre under Article 131 of the Constitution which deals with original jurisdiction of the top court in a dispute between the Centre and one or more states or a dispute between two or more states.
Contending that it was the owner and was in lawful possession of Shanan Power House Project and its Extension Project along with all assets currently under formative control of the government of Punjab through Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd (PSPCL), erstwhile PSEB, the Punjab government has sought a “permanent Prohibitory Injunction” restraining the Himachal Pradesh government from disturbing the lawful peaceful possession and smooth functioning over the Project.
Now, the Himachal Pradesh government said the Punjab government’s suit was barred by law, didn’t disclose any cause of action, and was not at all maintainable. The 1925 agreement was the basis for the construction of the project, the grant of lands and the recognition of rights between the parties, it said.
“Since the agreement in question has a force of law as per Section 2 (f) of the 1970 Act (Himachal Pradesh Act), therefore, by operation of law the suit property is vested in the state of Himachal Pradesh/Defendant No.1. Hence, plaintiff has no cause of action to maintain the present suit against the true owner and, therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected as the same is barred by law as well as discloses no cause of action,” the Sukhu government submitted.
he Punjab government was never the signatory of the land lease agreement; hence the present suit seeking a prohibitory injunction is not maintainable against the true owner of the land, it said, adding a dispute arising out of a pre-Constitution treaty or agreement is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this court under Article 131 of the Constitution.
The top court had on March 4 issued summonses to the Centre and the Himachal Pradesh government on the Punjab government’s suit against the HP government’s attempt to take control of Shanan Hydropower Project from Punjab. On July 29, it had given time till September 9 to the Himachal Pradesh government and the Centre to respond to the Punjab government’s suit.
