NEW DELHI: “When an inter-state agreement is binding on two States, any legislation passed either by a State or the Parliament which affects the agreement will not be valid. Only the Supreme Court can decide any dispute arising out of an inter-State agreement,” senior counsel K Parasaran told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Parasaran argued for Tamil Nadu, on the Original Suit filed by the state on the vexed Mullaperiyar dam issue before a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Justice D K Jain, Justice B Sudershan Reddy, Justice Mukundakam Sharma, Justice R M Lodha and Justice Deepak Verma.
“Kerala became a trustee of the water of Periyar. Kerala came up with the offer of a new dam to control the dam. By raising the water level, the boundaries of the sanctuary do not get affected,” he said.
“Kerala can cooperate, but not obstruct.
They are harping on the opinion of IIT professor who is an expert on hydrology. Whether the dam is of 100 years or 50 years, one has to see the strength of the dam,” Parasaran added. After lunch break, Tamil Nadu presented a model of Mullaperiyar dam, baby dam, sluice gates etc before the Bench for a proper understanding.
He elaborated the history of the dam, its genesis, the initial agreement etc before the Bench. “The Maharaja of Travancore executed a Lease Deed with the Governor-in-Council Fort St George (Madras) acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for India, whereby 8,000 acres of land was leased to Madras for the execution and preservation of irrigation works and other works under ‘Periyar Project’.
Pursuant to the agreement, Madras constructed at its cost a dam, water reservoir and other irrigation works across the Periyar during 1887- 1895. These consist of main dam, a baby dam and other ancillary works, Parasaran submitted.