'Scheme B of Krishna water award not a decision'

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, FEB. 2. The section `Scheme B' of the Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal award was a ``tentative proposal'' and not a ``decision'' which must be notified by the Centre under the Inter-State Water Disputes (ISWD) Act, senior counsel appearing for Andhra Pradesh, Mr. K. Parasaran, today contended before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.

The counsel was replying to the pleas of Mr. F. S. Nariman, senior counsel for Karnataka, in its original suit in the Krishna Water Dispute-Alamatti dam case which requested the Court among other things to direct the Centre to notify `Scheme B' (surplus water) of the Tribunal and make provision for establishment of a ``Krishna Valley Authority'' and for implementation of directions of the Tribunal in its 1973 report and 1976 Further Report, as contemplated under Sec. 6(A) of the ISWD 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.

The `Scheme A', which was a ``decision'' of the Tribunal, was binding on all the States concerned till it was `reviewed' after May 31, 2000, Mr. Parasaran submitted while pleading that it was not open to Karnataka to seek implementation of `Scheme B', after more than two decades since `Scheme A' had been acted upon.

As per Maharashtra's pleas, a chain of `carry-over reservoirs' should be constructed on the Krishna basin before seeking implementation of `Scheme B' - which had not been made binding by the Tribunal, Mr. Parasaran said.

It was also Maharashtra's contention that implementation of Scheme B ``at this stage'' was not in the interest of justice and would hamper its plans for harnessing its share of allocated water, the counsel submitted.

The Solicitor-General (SG), Mr. Harish N. Salve, appearing for the Union of India, submitted that, ideally, inter- State water disputes should be resolved by the States concerned by mutual ``compact''. A ``decision'' of the Tribunal was binding by its own force and the Tribunal in its report said `Scheme B' could be implemented by consent of the party-States concerned or by law to be made by Parliament, the SG submitted. He also said there was no obligation cast on the Union by the Tribunal's report to constitute a Krishna Valley Authority.

In response to a query from the Bench, Mr. Nariman, submitted if `Scheme B' was not implemented, the situation would be as it was about 25 years ago.

Mr. K. Parasaran, said, assuming for the sake of argument that `Scheme B' was a `decision' of the Tribunal, it could be implemented by consent of parties concerned or by a law to be made by the Parliament under Entry 56 of the list of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution (and not under Sec. 6 of the ISWD Act).

Under the allocation made under `Scheme A', Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh got 560 tmc ft, 700 tmc ft and 800 tmc ft. Maharashtra and Karnataka were restrained by the Tribunal from using waters in excess of their shares. Andhra Pradesh had, however, been given the ``liberty to use'' the remaining water within the allocation of 2,060 tmc ft without acquiring a right to use waters in excess of 800 tmc ft, according to the suit.

The surplus 330 tmc ft was allocated among the basin States on percentage basis, under Scheme B and Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh got 25, 50 and 25 per cent, respectively.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Tame end to Narasimha Rao's `crusade'
Next     : Digital TV to be introduced in metros