Thursday, Apr 03, 2003
Thursday, Apr 03, 2003 |
| National | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | National
By J. Venkatesan
The tribunal, comprising Justice N.P. Singh, chairman, Justice N.S. Rao and Justice S.N. Agarwal, which passed the order on an application from Tamil Nadu, said that nothing should be done by Kerala till the final orders were passed in the dispute. The order said: "we direct that during the pendency of the proceedings before this tribunal, Kerala shall not proceed further with the construction of the weir leading to trans-basin diversion and shall maintain status quo as it was existing on February 7, when an interim order was passed by the tribunal". The tribunal rejected Kerala's contention that the project was aimed at utilising the water primarily to meet the drinking water needs of the Anamooli, Thenkara and Mannarkkad villages. It said that the project report submitted to the Centre in 1997 had made no mention of this and therefore, "we do not think that it shall be appropriate to allow the trans-basin diversion at this stage''. Tamil Nadu had contended that the total cost of the project was estimated at Rs. 275.20 lakhs and that even a small cut towards the west would divert the water to the Anamooli valley in Bharathapuzha basin, which was already surplus. And the channel constructed for that purpose was nearing completion. The tribunal also rejected Kerala's contention that it had no jurisdiction to entertain Tamil Nadu's application. It said the parties had taken a clear stand in respect of the right to divert waters of the Cauvery or its tributaries from the Cauvery basin to an outside basin and because of that Issue No. 27 had been framed and evidence had been led on behalf of them. Any order permitting Kerala to proceed with the project — which involved a trans-basin diversion of water of the Bhavani, a tributary of Cauvery — was likely to affect the adjudication of that issue finally. Whether Kerala had such right shall be adjudicated after hearing the parties in detail and on the basis of the material on record. "It may be mentioned that there is no dispute that the Cauvery basin is a deficit basin and has waters much less than what is being claimed by different riparian States as their share," the tribunal said and directed Kerala not to proceed with the construction of the check dam till the final adjudication of the Cauvery dispute.
Printer friendly
page
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 | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
