New Delhi(PTI): The limited aspect of sharing of Krishna river water between the newly created state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh can be referred to the Water Dispute Tribunal instead of dragging other stakeholders Karnataka and Maharashtra into it, the Centre on Tuesday told the Supreme Court. Telangana, which was carved of Andhra Pradesh on June 2, 2014 has sought to be considered as an entity separate from the parent state in distribution of Krishna water among the stakeholder states. It seeks fresh determination of its share in Krishna water.
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant that there was no need for a fresh adjudication of the entire issue. The tribunal may be asked to decide the share of Telangana out of the water already allocated to Andhra Pradesh. The bench, meanwhile, asked the Centre to file an affidavit in the matter and fixed a batch of petitions for hearing on December 12. Earlier, the court had on September 30 fixed for today the final hearing on the petitions filed by Telangana, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra relating to a row over distribution of Krishna river water among them.
Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, representing Telangana, had sought a direction to the Centre to set up a statutory tribunal to determine its share of the Krishna river water. He had also said that a fresh reference was required to be sent to the Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal II for fresh allocation of water in view of passage of the Reorganisation of the State of Andhra Pradesh Act. Taking note of the plea of Telangana, the court had said it seemed that its request had got “independent character qua Karnataka, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh” even though the tribunal had passed its award in December 2010.
It said one of the questions to be considered was whether the quantity of water already allocated to Andhra Pradesh could be demarcated between Andhra Pradesh and Telanagana or Telangana could get separate allocations. The court, however, kept all the issues under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 open for consideration. It had also said that the inter-state water disputes “should be put to rest at the earliest.”