Live
- Uddhav Thackeray to PM Modi: Pay attention to Bangladesh, act to end Hindus’ misery
- Allu Arjun Arrested: KTR Reacts on X, Calls Arrest Unfair
- Bold steps by Modi govt in reviving Indian heritage, culture: Union Minister
- What are the charges against Allu Arjun: Understanding the Charges Against Him
- Allu Arjun Objects to Arrest Procedure, Requests Breakfast and Change of Clothes
- ‘Fear’ movie review: A gripping suspense thriller
- Phenom Successfully Hosts IAMPHENOM India, Transforming the Future of Work with AI, Automation, and Talent Experience
- Constitution provides shied, guarantee to Indians: Priyanka in LS
- Allu Arjun’s Quash Petition Hearing at 2:30 PM; Chiranjeevi Visits Police Station
- Bommai hails 'One Nation, One Election' move as PM Modi’s bold decision
Tribunal has power to settle row: AP
On the third day of the proceedings on Thursday, the Krishna Waters Disputes Tribunal - II headed by Justice Brijesh Kumar, heard with rapt attention the arguments of Andhra Pradesh and later adjourned the further hearing to May 9, 10 and 11.
New Delhi: On the third day of the proceedings on Thursday, the Krishna Waters Disputes Tribunal - II headed by Justice Brijesh Kumar, heard with rapt attention the arguments of Andhra Pradesh and later adjourned the further hearing to May 9, 10 and 11.
Opening up his case for a fresh award, counsel for AP, A K Ganguly said the Tribunals of over water disputes were created based on the provisions of the Article 262 of the Constitution in 1956. “One should recall the dispute between Punjab and Haryana over the sharing of Ravi and Beas river waters when no Tribunal was existing,” he said pointing out that it was the parliament that finally made the law.
“The intervention of Centre or Parliament was unnecessary now in case of AP and Telangana as the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal was in place and hence it was the duty of the Tribunal to make a decision. Moreover, the Reorganisation Act of the Telugu States clearly spelled out that the tribunal would be dealing with the dispute.
“Again, there was no mention in the said Act about the Tribunal’s period of validity. The Water Resources Ministry had only extended the life the Tribunal by two years through a circular. “The loopholes in the said Act resulted in confusion and hence, the Tribunal was empowered to settle the dispute,” Ganguly argued.
Karnataka stuck to its familiar argument that the dispute, if any, belonged to the two Telugu States and hence, the others must not be made a party to it. "Did any of the geographical realities change because of bifurcation even by an inch” asked Karnataka counsel arguing against reopening of the award. Maharashtra too vociferously opposed Telangana plea to revisit the earlier award of the same Tribunal.
They objected to the arguments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana on the grounds that just as the Reorganization Act provided for sharing of the assets and liabilities, the two States should share their water assets too. It was irrelevant to seek four-way allocation afresh.
The counsel said Telangana government had approached the Apex court already as the award was given before the Telangana's Appointed Day and hence it should not be interfered with. “The Tribunal had heard all arguments for about 10 years and hence, need not relook into its own wisdom,” he said. As Telangana had sought ‘sufficient time’ to present its case, it was asked to do so in May.
