Live
- BJP urges EC to stop Cong’s ‘Guarantee Cards’ campaign aimed to 'induce voters'
- Congress cheated Madigas: Dr. RS Praveen Kumar
- CBDT signs record 125 pacts to ease tax payments by big multinational firms
- Kamal Nath accuses BJP of ‘threatening’ Congress leaders in Chhindwara
- Odisha: BJP, BJD allege violation of MCC
- PM Modi lands in Guwahati to kickstart poll campaign
- ‘100 day action plan’ is PM Modi’s signature style for setting goals and meeting targets
- BJP will change the Constitution if they come to power again, says Priyanka Gandhi
- BJP-led NDA to cross 390-mark in Lok Sabha polls, predicts India TV-CNX survey
- Haier launches new TV series in four sizes in India
Setback to Telangana, AP
The order was much awaited as to see whether fresh allocation of Krishna waters will be taken up only for AP and Telangana or for all the four states- Karnataka, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
New Delhi: In a major setback to the two Telugu states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal, inquiring into the Krishna Water Dispute amongst the states of AP, Telangana, Maharashtra and Karnataka, ruled here on Wednesday that the scope of the inquiry would be confined to the two Telugu states and not to the two upper riparian states.
Accordingly, project-wise allocation and operational protocol in the eventuality of deficit flows of Krishna waters would be based on the allocation of waters to the united Andhra Pradesh only, it said.
It also ruled that the two Telugu states could continue their arguments on project-wise allocation between them and on operational protocol henceforth. The order is subject to the outcome of the related case in the Supreme Court, according to the judgment.
The Section 89 of the AP Reorganization Act, 2014 was confined to the two states of AP and Telangana. And Karnataka and Maharashtra do not get attracted by the Section, it felt. The hearing was adjourned to December 14.
This effectively brings the curtains down on the suspense over the jurisdiction of the dispute in a relief to Karnataka and Maharashtra.
The order came as a dampener to the two Telugu states. Irrigation Advisor to Telangana Vidyasagar Rao and Additional Advocate General Ramachandra Rao said it was a blow to the aspirations of the two Telugu states and that the Tribunal did not consider their arguments comprehensively.
The order proclaimed by the Tribunal here on Wednesday said the states of Telangana and AP shall file their statement regarding clauses (a) and (b) of the Section 89 of Act No 6 of 2014 within a period of four weeks and reply thereto within two weeks and rejoinder, if any, within a week thereafter.
In its 124-page order, it observed that the Tribunal had already decided the dispute amongst the three states in the past and had also declared the shares of each of the three states in the yield of river Krishna and also upheld the allocations made by the earlier Tribunals at 75% dependability and further distributed water available between 75% dependability and the average flow amongst the three states.
But, before the decision of this Tribunal was published, the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2014 was enacted bifurcating the existing state of Andhra Pradesh into the states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.
Moreover, as per the Section 89 of Act No 6 of the AP Reorganization Act, 2014 (as contained in clauses (a) and (b) of the Section: "The term of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal shall be extended with the following terms of reference, namely: (a) shall make project wise specific allocation, if such allocations have not been made by a Tribunal constituted under the Inter State River Water Disputes Act. 1956; 2 (b) shall determine an operational protocol for project wise release of water in the event of deficit flows".
Hence, the Tribunal was functional and could decide on the issue, it said in response to the questions raised on its jurisdiction in deciding upon the issue.
It also answered all the nine issues framed in due consultation with all the parties and in response to the query of the Centre in such a manner as to rule out ambiguity.
Also Read:
