SC caution in Krishna dispute

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, JAN. 19. The Supreme Court today restrained the parties in the ``Krishna river water dispute suits'', Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and the Union of India, from going to the media on the merits of this matter during the pendency of the proceedings.

A five-judge Bench began hearing an original suit from Karnataka seeking the court to decree and declare that the ``surplus water'' in the Krishna, in excess of 2,060 TMC at 75 per cent dependability must be shared in accordance with the determination and directions of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, as contained in its report in 1973, and a further report in 1976.

This suit also requested the court to direct the Centre to notify `Scheme B' - (`surplus water') - framed by the Tribunal and make a provision for establishment of the Krishna Valley Authority and for implementation of directions of the Tribunal in its 1973 report and the 1976 report, as contemplated under Section 6 A of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act.

The Bench comprised Mr. Justice S. B. Majumdar, Mr. Justice G. B. Pattanaik, Mr. Justice V. N. Khare, Mr. Justice U. C. Banerjee and Mr. Justice R. P. Sethi.

Karnataka's suit also sought to restrain A.P. from continuing to execute certain specified projects until the Scheme B framed by the Tribunal was duly and effectively put into operation.

Mr. F. S. Nariman, senior counsel appearing for Karnataka, submitted that the dispute was over the true interpretation, scope and extent of the decision of the Tribunal, particularly Clause V (C).

The Tribunal allocated 2,060 TMC of water available at 75 per cent dependability. Under Scheme `A', under this allocation, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh got 560, 700 and 800 TMC of water respectively. Maharashtra and Karnataka were restrained by the Tribunal from using waters in excess of their shares. Andhra Pradesh had been permitted the ``liberty to use'' the remaining water within the allocation of 2,060 TMC without acquiring a right to use waters in excess of 800 TMC, according to the suit.

The ``surplus water'' of 330 TMC was allocated among the basin States on a percentage basis, under Scheme B and Maharashtra, Karnataka and A.P. got 25, 50 and 25 per cent respectively, according to the suit. The Tribunal made Scheme `A' allocations self- executing but the implementation of Scheme `B' (surplus 330 TMC) was left to the good sense and consent of the parties and to the wisdom of Parliament.

A connected suit from A.P. sought the court's directions to Karnataka and others concerned (respondents) restraining them from raising the height of the Alamatti dam (in Karnataka) from 509 to 524 metres, as otherwise, according to the plea, Karnataka would be utilising more than its share of allotted water under Scheme `A' of the Tribunal award.

Karnataka's plea was that even by raising the height to 524 metres it would still confine itself to using its share under Scheme `A'.

The court by its interim order made some time ago, directed a ``status quo'' in respect of the Alamatti dam.

Mr. Harish Salve, Solicitor-General appearing for the Union of India, said it was eminently desirable that the distribution of allocated inter-State river water be made by a mutual agreement among the States concerned. He, however, submitted that Karnataka's suit was barred under Article 262 of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act (barring the jurisdiction of any court including the apex court from adjudicating any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution and control of the waters of any inter-State river or river valley).

Both the suits are filed under Article 131 (dealing with original jurisdiction of the court between two or more States and the Government of India, etc, in any dispute involving questions of law and fact on which the existence and extent of legal rights depend).

Mr. T. R. Andhyarujina, senior counsel for Maharashtra, submitted that any decision on increasing the height of the Alamatti dam beyond 509 metres be taken only after the extent of submergence of land in his State was determined by the on-going expert studies.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Poll pact in Bihar
Next     : Gujarat Govt. backs survey