Tuesday, Apr 09, 2002
Tuesday, Apr 09, 2002 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Karnataka
By Our Staff Correspondent
Admitting the PIL filed by Panchappa Kalburgi, President of Bheema Nadi Neeru Rakshana Raithavarga Samithi (BNNRRS), seeking relief (availability of water in the river), the Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising G.B.Patnayak and Brijesh Kumar, directed the respondents to reply within two weeks. The court has asked the respondents if the fundamental right of the petitioner and public on the banks of the river had been put to jeopardy as far as drinking water was concerned. If so, what was the reason and what measures the respondents had taken to safeguard the people's right? In the eleventh hour, the petitioner had to amend the plea, dropping Maharashtra as one of respondents in the case after the observation of the Bench. During the course of argument, the Bench, quoting the Article 262 of the Constitution and provisions of Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1986, observed that individuals could not raise any water dispute against neighbouring States. The panel of senior counsels, comprising Indira Jaisingh and Amitab Verma, who had been arguing the case on behalf of the petitioner, agreed to delete Maharashtra from the array of parties (respondents) in the case, and the prayer against it, after which the notices were issued to parties concerned.
A new battle
Although Maharashtra was deleted from the list of parties, observers feel that the PIL formally signalled the battle for the Bheema waters between that State and Karnataka, which was at loggerheads with Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh over the sharing of the Cauvery and the Krishna waters, respectively. The PIL claimed that the Bheema remained dry between November and May in the water year (water year is between June to May) since 1998. This caused hardship to three lakh people living in 134 villages on the banks of the Bheema in Karnataka since they did not have access to water. The petitioner contended that non-availability of water for a major part of the water year had an adverse effect on the flora and fauna in the region and also caused ecological imbalances in the river system. The petitioner alleged that the depletion of water table was caused by the wrong actions taken by Maharashtra, which was utilising and storing water well beyond the quota fixed by Bachawat Tribunal. As per clause 9 of Bachawat Award, Maharashtra had been restrained from using more than 95 tmcft. of water in the main stream of the Bheema. However, it had developed projects and created infrastructure to utilise water more than this quota. More importantly, the Ujani Dam built in that State across the Bheema was large and it held 60 tmcft. of water, which was unprecedented in the field of irrigation in the country. The petitioner alleged that Karnataka failed to complete barrages across the Bheema to augment water supply for summer because of which the people living on the banks of the Bheema had been put to hardship. Mr. Kalburgi told The Hindu over telephone from Delhi that the admission of the PIL was the first victory for farmers from the Bheema belt, who had been spearheading the agitation to safeguard their rightful share of waters in the Bheema.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|