A.P.’s plea for separate hearing of Sec. 89, 3 references is ‘delaying tactics’: TG to KWDT

Telangana has underscored that making project specific allocation and devising an operational protocol would be meaningless without providing for an equitable allocation of water between the two States first and it would be dependent on the determination of the same.
| Photo Credit: Rajendra Singh Hajeri

HYDERABAD

Telangana has submitted to the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT-II) chaired by Justice Brijesh Kumar that the conduct of Andhra Pradesh throughout the ongoing proceedings clearly establishes that it only seeks to delay, if not stall, the present proceedings before the Tribunal.

In its rejoinder filed on Friday to the reply filed by A.P. in the matter of an interlocutory application filed by it (Telangana) earlier this month seeking consolidation of records filed in response to the reference made under Section 89 of the AP Reorganisation Act and ‘further terms of reference’ made under Section 3 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, Telangana has stated that opposition to the ongoing proceedings are set out in A.P.’s reply and it is yet another instance of A.P.’s delaying tactics.

Telangana has pointed out that A.P. has no objection to the Tribunal contextually considering the pleadings, evidence and documents filed in the Section 89 proceedings, while dealing with arguments under Section 3 ‘Further Terms of Reference’, its (A.P.’s) objection to consider the pleadings, documents and evidence in the determination of the previous reference (Sec. 89) is ‘unjustly raised to support its (A.P.’s) prayer to hear and adjudicate both the references separately’.

Adjudicating the two references separately would be time consuming and waste of judicial time unnecessarily and it would unduly delay drawing conclusion in the two related references, Telangana said in its reply filed before KWDT-II. Its present application is a prayer to the Tribunal to consider the pleadings, evidence and documents filed on behalf of the two States in both the references as common record for the purpose of adjudication.

Telangana has underscored that making project specific allocation and devising an operational protocol would be meaningless without providing for an equitable allocation of water between the two States first and it would be dependent on the determination of the same. Further, the findings rendered in the references would be intertwined and any award passed under Section 89 reference could only be given effect meaningfully, based on an award passed under Section 3 reference.

It would be key for the Tribunal to simultaneously adjudicate the two references and consider the material holistically in order to definitively adjudicate and put an end to the dispute between Telangana and A.P. and to do complete justice. Telangana has pointed out that the Supreme Court deliberately did not stay the present proceedings while issuing notice in a writ petition in November last year and the present proceedings could continue as they are. Mere pendency of the writ petition in the absence of any stay or direction could not be an excuse for A.P. to dictate any procedure to the Tribunal to delay the present proceedings.

The plea for simultaneous hearing of the two references by taking the material as a common record was made only with a practical view to save judicial time as there is considerable overlap between the material and issues framed in the two references.