SC Adjourns Polavaram Link Case to Jan 12, Suggests Telangana File Civil Suit

Hyderabad: The Supreme Court on Monday heard a writ petition filed by the Telangana government challenging the Polavaram–Nallamalasagar link project (PNLP) of Andhra Pradesh and adjourned the matter to January 12 to examine the issue comprehensively.

As the court observed that the Telangana government should seek adjudication on the issue by filing a civil suit rather than approach the court with a writ petition, irrigation minister N. Uttam Kumar Reddy told mediapersons that government was ready to file a suit. “We want to stop AP from going ahead with the contentious Nallamalasagar project at any cost,” he said.

Sources told Deccan Chronicle that the apex court had in earlier instances allowed a writ petition in a similar case in which the Andhra Pradesh government had challenged the withdrawal of Krishna waters by the Telangana government for power generation. “We are ready with a suit plaint also,” sources added.

The Telangana government had filed the petition seeking immediate intervention against the PNLP, with the state alleging that illegal construction activity was taken up by Andhra Pradesh without statutory approvals. Telangana urged the court to direct the Polavaram Project Authority to halt all construction work, arguing that the PNLP was being undertaken in violation of permissions and without adherence to prescribed design norms.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Telangana, contended that the Polavaram project could only proceed strictly in accordance with the clearances granted and that any alteration to its design was impermissible. He termed the PNLP works “illegal” and submitted that repeated objections raised by Telangana before the Central government had yielded no results.

Singvi pointed out that the Centre was still reviewing the project’s pre-feasibility report (PFR), yet Andhra Pradesh was preparing to move ahead with a detailed project report (DPR), contrary to the Central Water Commission (CWC) guidelines. Singhvi sought interim directions restraining the Centre from granting environmental clearances or financial assistance for the project. Citing the CWC’s direction to halt construction, the Senior counsel requested for stay on the constructions works.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Andhra Pradesh refuted the contentions of Singhvi and argued that Telangana itself was executing several irrigation projects and was indiscriminately using Godavari waters. He further argued that Andhra Pradesh was only preparing a feasibility report and that Telangana would suffer no prejudice at this stage.

Rohatgi questioned Telangana’s authority to object to projects undertaken within Andhra Pradesh’s territorial jurisdiction and argued that Polavaram was a national project, while the Nallamalasagar link was a separate state project that existed even prior to Telangana’s formation. Rohatgi asserted that the CWC had not rejected the project and that, in the absence of any judicial stay, the tender process would continue.

The bench questioned Telangana on the maintainability of its writ petition, observing that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature and would require adjudication through a civil suit. It noted that a Central committee had been constituted and advised the Telangana government to await its findings. The court observed that Godavari waters involved the interests of Maharashtra and Karnataka as well, and reiterated that there was no scope for a stay until the committee submitted its report.

Senior counsel Singhvi for Telangana sought time to consult the state government on the issue of filing a civil suit and requested an adjournment. The matter was accordingly posted to January 12, without interim orders being passed.