various orders and judgements passed by the Supreme Court from time to time and said the decisions should reach to the "logical conclusion" which is construction of the canal.
various orders and judgements passed by the Supreme Court from time to time and said the decisions should reach to the "logical conclusion" which is construction of the canal.
The apex court has categorically said the canal has to be constructed by a central agency and the November 10, 2016 constitution bench verdict has said that the Punjab Act, terminating the water agreement, was unconstitutional.
Jethmalani said the dispute at hand cannot be decided by the court as the 1981 water agreement was not enforceable as the quantity of water has dipped and "good people from both sides should sit together and find an amicable solution".
The Centre should act as an arbitrator in the matter and help both sides in finding a solution, he said.
Rejecting the plea for adjournment of hearing after the declaration of assembly polls results, the bench said, "we want to finish it off. If we wait till the results, then you will say that let the government be formed".
Earlier too on February 15, the apex court had rejected a similar plea of Punjab saying "what is the use of courts waiting for election results."
It had said that the decrees passed in the SYL canal dispute between Punjab and Haryana cannot be flouted and directed both states to strictly implement its orders.
On November 30 last year, the court had directed maintenance of status quo on SYL canal and appointed Union Home Secretary, Chief Secretary of Punjab and the Punjab DGP as court receivers of the lands, works, property and portions of the canal. It had asked them to file a report with regard to the ground situation of the property.
The court had then also thwarted Punjab's attempt to wriggle out of SYL water sharing pact, saying it cannot "unilaterally" terminate it or legislate to "nullify" the verdict of the highest court.
The court had issued notice to Punjab on Haryana's plea seeking enforcement of the apex court verdicts and appointment of the receivers to ensure that the project land in Punjab remained intact. (More)
(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}