Telangana withdraws writ petition over Andhra Pradesh’s Polavaram project
Hyderabad, Jan 12 : The Telangana government on Monday withdrew its writ petition against Polavaram-Banakacherla/Nallamalasagar Link Project (PBLP/PNLP) proposed by Andhra Pradesh after the Supreme Court termed it “prima facie not maintainable”.
The apex court observed that the dispute was more appropriately adjudicated through a suit involving all affected states.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi granted liberty to Telangana to avail of any other appropriate remedies available in law, including the institution of a suit.
Telangana filed the writ petition seeking to restrain Andhra Pradesh from proceeding with preparatory and project-related activities for PBLP/PNLP.
Telangana’s Irrigation Minister N. Uttam Kumar Reddy told reporters outside the Supreme Court that the writ petition was withdrawn in view of the suggestion by the Chief Justice of India to come in the form of a civil suit.
He stated that the Congress government in Telangana would use all forums to protect the State’s due share in the waters of both Godavari and Krishna rivers.
He said on behalf of Telangana, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi brought to the Supreme Court’s notice all violations of the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal award by Andhra Pradesh.
The minister said the Supreme Court was told that Andhra Pradesh was trying to utilise more water than allocated to it. He argued that Andhra Pradesh is not entitled to use additional water.
Uttam Kumar Reddy said the Telangana government also brought to the Supreme Court’s notice that even in the construction ofthe Polavaram project, Andhra Pradesh was committing several violations of the originally approved project.
The apex court was told that the ‘stop work order’ issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest was not implemented.
He said the division bench was informed that Andhra Pradesh is trying to create infrastructure to use more than 484.5 TMC allotted to it.
“They are trying to prepare DPR, though the Central Water Commission has not given permission for the DPR,” he said.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the Andhra Pradesh government.
During the previous hearing on January 5, the apex court had raised serious doubts over the maintainability of the petition. It had indicated that a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution would be a more comprehensive and effective remedy.
The apex court observed that the dispute was more appropriately adjudicated through a suit involving all affected states.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi granted liberty to Telangana to avail of any other appropriate remedies available in law, including the institution of a suit.
Telangana filed the writ petition seeking to restrain Andhra Pradesh from proceeding with preparatory and project-related activities for PBLP/PNLP.
Telangana’s Irrigation Minister N. Uttam Kumar Reddy told reporters outside the Supreme Court that the writ petition was withdrawn in view of the suggestion by the Chief Justice of India to come in the form of a civil suit.
He stated that the Congress government in Telangana would use all forums to protect the State’s due share in the waters of both Godavari and Krishna rivers.
He said on behalf of Telangana, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi brought to the Supreme Court’s notice all violations of the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal award by Andhra Pradesh.
The minister said the Supreme Court was told that Andhra Pradesh was trying to utilise more water than allocated to it. He argued that Andhra Pradesh is not entitled to use additional water.
Uttam Kumar Reddy said the Telangana government also brought to the Supreme Court’s notice that even in the construction ofthe Polavaram project, Andhra Pradesh was committing several violations of the originally approved project.
The apex court was told that the ‘stop work order’ issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest was not implemented.
He said the division bench was informed that Andhra Pradesh is trying to create infrastructure to use more than 484.5 TMC allotted to it.
“They are trying to prepare DPR, though the Central Water Commission has not given permission for the DPR,” he said.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the Andhra Pradesh government.
During the previous hearing on January 5, the apex court had raised serious doubts over the maintainability of the petition. It had indicated that a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution would be a more comprehensive and effective remedy.