Live
- Court extends Manish Sisodia's judicial custody till May 8 in ED case
- Captivating performance by disciples of Guru Ananda Shankar Jayant
- 91 pc of Indian firms will use half or more data to train AI models
- Innovative cyber security program for engineering graduates
- Indian-origin researcher unravels link between depression and heart disease
- The importance of technology education schools
- New Delhi: Will severe heat wave affect polling tomorrow?
- Delhi Zoo to roll out membership plans
- Kotak Mahindra vows fix after RBI action
- Banks failing to tap fintech: Ashneer
Water dispute among all three riparian states continues
The Centre is of the opinion that unless the petitions are disposed, it cannot issue a gazette notification.
BENGALURU: Eight months have passed by since the Mahadayi river tribunal had delivered its verdict by allocating 13.5tmcft of water to the state of Karnataka, but the people of Mumbai-Karnataka region, who persistently fought for over three decades for a share of the river water, are yet to benefit. The dispute continues to heave across all three riparian states Goa, Maharashtra and Karnataka which have appealed for clarifications from the tribunal regarding its final judgment.
Apart from this, Karnataka has also filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, questioning the decision of the tribunal to leave a large quantity of water unallocated.
The Centre is of the opinion that unless the petitions are disposed, it cannot issue a gazette notification.
Seeking an early notification over the verdict of the tribunal, the Chief minister HD Kumaraswamy had met Union water resources minister Nitin Gadkari twice before the Lok Sabha election schedule was announced.
Farmers in Dharwad and Belgaum districts, who had staged a two-year protest expecting a share of the water, feel that the mere pendency of cases before a court should not deprive them the share of water and the verdict should be notified immediately by the Centre.
MB Jirli, a member of the Karnataka's legal team, had pointed out by saying, "The reason is once states utilise their share of water, then it becomes very difficult to modify or make a fresh allocation in the final verdict."
