A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal stated that it will first address the Himachal Pradesh government’s application challenging the maintainability of Punjab’s suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) on November 8.
New Delhi: The Himachal Pradesh government on Monday (Sep 23) urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the Punjab government’s lawsuit, which seeks to prevent Himachal Pradesh from assuming control of the Shanan Hydropower Project following the expiration of a 99-year lease agreement.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal stated that it will first address the Himachal Pradesh government’s application challenging the maintainability of Punjab’s suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) on November 8.
“We will first need to address the preliminary objections raised against the suit,”
the bench remarked, before adjourning the case.
The Punjab government had previously approached the Supreme Court to challenge Himachal Pradesh’s move to take over the 110-MW Shanan Hydropower Project after the 99-year lease expired on March 2.
The dispute between the two neighboring states involves the British-era Shanan Hydropower Project, located in Jogindernagar, Mandi district, Himachal Pradesh. The project was constructed in 1925 under a lease agreement between Raja Joginder Sen, the ruler of the former Mandi state, and Col. B.C. Batty, who represented the British government and served as the chief engineer of undivided Punjab.
As per the agreement, water from the Uhl River, a tributary of the Beas River, was to be used for generating power for undivided Punjab, including Lahore and Delhi, before India’s independence.
In its application, filed through advocate Sugandha Anand, the Himachal Pradesh government argued that Punjab’s lawsuit is legally barred, lacks any valid cause of action, and is not maintainable.
The Himachal Pradesh Government emphasized that the 1925 agreement served as the foundation for the project’s construction, land grants, and the recognition of rights between the parties.
The state further stated that, under Section 2(f) of the Himachal Pradesh Act of 1970, the agreement has the force of law, meaning that the suit property is legally vested in Himachal Pradesh.
As a result, the Punjab government has no valid cause of action to file the current lawsuit, and the claim should be dismissed as it is both legally barred and fails to disclose any actionable grounds.
The application stated that since the Punjab government was never a signatory to the land lease agreement, its current suit seeking a prohibitory injunction is not maintainable against the rightful landowner.
The Himachal Pradesh application further argued that the plaint does not present any cause of action for a permanent prohibitory injunction, as the plaintiff has never sought ownership of the project.
The hill state also contended that Punjab’s suit, filed under Article 131 of the Constitution which allows states to directly approach the Supreme Court in inter-state disputes fails to disclose a cause of action and is legally barred. It emphasized that disputes arising from pre-Constitution treaties or agreements do not fall within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 131.
The case, Himachal Pradesh said, stems from the March 3, 1925 agreement between the British government and the Raja of Mandi.
On March 4, the Supreme Court issued a summons on Punjab’s suit and sought a response from the Himachal Pradesh government. It was noted that the Centre ordered the status quo regarding the project’s possession.
The bench instructed the Punjab Government to submit a copy of the Union Ministry of Power’s March 1 order, which directed both states to maintain the status quo on the Shanan Power Project.
Filed through its secretary (power and energy), the Punjab government’s suit seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent Himachal Pradesh from disrupting the state’s lawful possession and operation of the Shanan Power House Project, asserting that Punjab is the owner in lawful possession of the project and its extension, along with all assets. In the interim, Punjab requested that the status quo be maintained and sought a temporary injunction to prevent its dispossession from the project.
Punjab further claimed that the project has been managed and controlled by the state through the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, as allocated by a central notification in May 1967.
