The Andhra Pradesh Cabinet will discuss and debate seven ‘crucial observations’ made recently by the Krishna Water Dispute (Justice Brijesh Kumar) Tribunal – II on the matter of fresh allocation among the four riparian States of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.
The tribunal in its order made observations that were initially construed as against the interest of A.P., but irrigation experts are of the view that there is no cause for concern.
Senior counsel A.K. Ganguli, who is arguing the case for Andhra Pradesh in the Supreme Court and his team of legal assistants, explained to Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, Advocate-General Dammalapati Srinivas, Minister for Water Resources Devineni Umamaheswara Rao, Agriculture Minister Prathipati Pulla Rao, and others the full import of the tribunal’s order.
After a discussion that lasted nearly three hours, the Chief Minister said any further course should be taken only after a full-fledged discussion on the subject by the Cabinet.
Crucial observations
Mr. Umamaheswara Rao, listing the crucial observations, told The Hindu that the tribunal observed that Section 89 of the Reorganisation Act does not lead to any such inference or conclusion for fresh allocation amongst the four riparian States.
There was not even a mention of Telangana let alone reallocation of water in the section.
Section 89 did not specify allocations to projects, in general, and mentioned allocations only to projects for which allocation were fixed by the earlier tribunals, Justice Brijesh Kumar observed.
The tribunal observed that allocations made on the basis of water utilisations outside Krishna basin were valid on historic grounds. Rayalaseema, which was outside the basin, was therefore entitled for Krishna water.
The two successor States (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) could only share what was allocated to the undivided Andhra Pradesh, nothing more or nothing less, the tribunal observed.
Claim trashed
The tribunal trashed the claim of Telangana state that erstwhile Andhra Pradesh was divided because of the inequitable and faulty allocation of water.
The tribunal pointed out this reason that was stressed repeatedly by Telangana in its petition to the Supreme Court was not borne out from the statement or Objectives and Reasons and the Salient Features of the Bill.
As if to stress its point, the tribunal observed that the primary reason for the division of the erstwhile state was to “fulfil the political and democratic aspirations of the people of Telangana region,” and not inequitable sharing of water.
Senior counsel A.K. Ganguli explained to the Chief Minister and others about the tribunal’s order
