New Delhi, Nov. 7 -- The Supreme Court on Friday brought a multi-decade interstate electricity dispute to a close, accepting a cashless settlement framework to implement Himachal Pradesh's entitlement to a 7.19% share of power generated from the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas hydro-electric projects, while directing Punjab and Haryana to supply the state's outstanding energy dues over the next 20 years. Under the framework approved by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Punjab and Haryana will supply Himachal Pradesh approximately 11,973 million units (MU) of electricity over 20 lean seasons, after adjusting the hill state's liability towards its share of the projects' capital cost. The two states will supply approximately 598 MU annually during lean season, between October and March, in the ratio of 58:42 for the Bhakra-Nangal project and 60:40 for the Beas projects. The court directed Himachal Pradesh to pay the charges determined by the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) for the year in which each tranche of electricity is received. Its capital-cost liability has been assessed at Rs.420.77 crore, which will be adjusted against its outstanding energy entitlement by valuing the corresponding electricity at Rs.3.85 per unit. This translates into an adjustment of approximately 1,093 MU from the total arrears of 13,066 MU. The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, approved the arrangement evolved through deliberations led by Attorney General R Venkataramani, involving Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana, after rejecting Punjab's objections to the proposed computation and the manner of adjustment. The court also issued a stern reminder to the states and the Union government that its directions were binding and had to be implemented without reservation, warning that the decree could not be rendered meaningless by the unwillingness or recalcitrance of a judgment debtor. "The expectation of decree, having remained pending for several decades, cannot be rendered fruitless by reason of the unwillingness or recalcitrance of a Judgment Debtor," it said, adding that all concerned parties must cooperate to ensure that its directions were implemented in their "true letter and spirit". The dispute, which dates back to the reorganisation of Punjab in 1966, concerns Himachal Pradesh's claim that it was entitled to a share in the electricity generated by the two projects, much of whose infrastructure was built on territory that now forms part of the hill state. The Bhakra-Nangal project required the submergence of approximately 27,869 acres in the erstwhile princely state of Bilaspur, while the Beas project submerged over 65,050 acres in Kangra district. Despite the reorganisation of Punjab, the electricity generated by the projects continued to be distributed among Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chandigarh on an ad hoc basis. Himachal Pradesh had maintained it was entitled to 7.19% of the power attributable to composite Punjab, based on the proportion of its population transferred to the state. The state first asserted this claim before the Centre in October 1969, but its demand was rejected in 1994. A tripartite meeting convened in 1995 also failed to resolve the dispute, prompting Himachal Pradesh to institute a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution in 1996. In its September 27, 2011 judgment, the Supreme Court partly decreed the suit, declaring Himachal Pradesh entitled to 7.19% of the power attributable to composite Punjab. This translated into 6.095% of the total power generated from the Bhakra-Nangal project, 5.752% from Beas Unit I and 2.984% from Beas Unit II. The court directed the Centre to compute the amounts due to the state, leaving the question of actual implementation to be worked out subsequently. The Union government subsequently quantified Himachal Pradesh's outstanding energy entitlement at 13,066 million units for the period between November 1, 1966 and October 2011, or from the respective dates of commencement of production in the case of the Beas units. However, differences over the applicable tariff, the quantum of arrears and the allocation of liabilities between Punjab and Haryana kept the matter alive for years, despite repeated attempts at mediation and settlement....