The Andhra Pradesh government on Monday moved the Supreme Court, challenging the award of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal-II (KWDT-II) in respect of allocation of the Krishna waters among Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
A similar appeal has been filed by Karnataka against the award.
As per the Tribunal's award, submitted in December last, Andhra Pradesh will get 1,001 tmc ft. of water; Karnataka 911 tmc ft. and Maharashtra 666 tmc ft.
Assailing the award, Andhra Pradesh, in its SLP, said the findings recorded in respect of the yield of the water at various “dependabilities” were in violation of the principles of natural justice, contrary to the established judicial procedure and settled principles in determining the yield of the river and the length of series of years.
Pointing out that the entire proceedings before the KWDT-II were vitiated as it acted on a method of considering 47 years for determining the yield at various dependabilities, the SLP said it was an impermissible method.
“The decision of the KWDT-II has resulted in an anomalous situation as it has taken into account the wettest period in the basin leading to boosting of the yield. Further it ought not to have considered the inflated utilisation figures of States of Maharashtra and Karnataka for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 for computing the yield series which was furnished after the completion of evidence,” it said.
“Part of right to life”
“The KWDT-II ought to have considered that providing drinking water to needy areas is part of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The National Water Policy also gives priority to the drinking water which requires that the same be assured at 100 dependability.”
The State said: “The various demands projected by Andhra Pradesh include demand for drinking water. Non-consideration of the said demands vitiates the equitable allocation made by KWDT-II since it is important that drinking water should be physically accessible at a place where there is a dire requirement, as these areas are either drought-affected or fluoride-affected and have no other water resource to meet these demands except the surface flows of river Krishna.”
The SLP contended that the KWDT-II decision was arbitrary and illegal, warranting interference by the Supreme Court as it had caused grave injustice to the State of Andhra Pradesh. It sought quashing of the award.
