Bengaluru: Senior counsel and former Advocate General B.V. Acharya feels the state government can seek the intervention of the Prime Minister to resolve the dispute over lifting 7.56 tmcft water from Mahadayi river after the tribunal rejected Karnataka’s plea.
Delivering a talk on ‘Mahadayi order review’ here on Monday organized by the Advocates for Democracy forum, Mr Acharya said that since the tribunal was constituted by the Centre, it has every right to intervene whenever necessary.
In the past, then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao had suggested that Karnataka release 6 tmcft water from the Cauvery river to Tamil Nadu on humanitarian grounds though the Supreme Court had rejected the plea of TN for water.
Karnataka obliged the Prime Minister, likewise in the Mahadayi case, the state can seek the intervention of the Prime Minister, he said.
He disagreed with the opinion expressed by another former Advocate General, Ashok Harnahalli, that the PM’s intervention was not necessary at this stage. Mr Harnahalli had justified his view saying Goa may refuse to budge and give in to the plea of the PM as the tribunal had ruled in its favour.
Striking a conciliatory note, Mr. Acharya felt the issue can be settled amicably if leaders of all political parties in Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra create a favourable atmosphere for this.
The Mahadayi problem is less serious than the Cauvery and Krishna disputes, he said adding that the Centre and the respective states can resolve the issue through talks.
SLP is only option
Mr Acharya suggested that the government should also pursue the legal option and file a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court to challenge the July 27 order of the Tribunal denying Karnataka water.
The tribunal has given an arbitrary order which may also influence its final order, is it is necessary to challenge the legality of the interim order before the Supreme Court, he explained. He felt the filing of a review petition before the Tribunal will not work, since the same judge has to review his order and in most cases, the chances of a review are very less.
Earlier, Mr Ashok Harnahalli felt the tribunals order was erroneous as it had not taken into consideration the pleas of the Central Water Commission and Karnataka.
