Telangana - Andhra Pradesh stand on PRLIS not tenable
Senior lawyer C S Vaidyanathan argued on friday that the denial of the right share of krishna water was a major factor in the creation of telangana state and that even after the partition, there was no significant action that might help repair the wrong meted out to the state.
He presented a compelling argument for the state's deprival before the Justice Brijesh Kumar Tribunal (KWDT-II) in New Delhi, claiming that according to the basin specifications, telangana State was entitled to 70% of the allotment given to the once undivided Andhra Pradesh. But only slightly more than 30% of it may be used, according to the rules.
He presented a compelling argument for the state's deprival before the Justice Brijesh Kumar Tribunal (KWDT-II) in New Delhi, claiming that according to the basin specifications, telangana State was entitled to 70% of the allotment given to the once undivided Andhra Pradesh. But only slightly more than 30% of it may be used, according to the rules.
Out of the 811 TMC that the KWDT-1 had allotted for the undivided state, 512 TMC had been reassigned to ap, he noted. Over 300 tmc of the total share that ap was allowed to use was being diverted to suit its demands beyond the basin.
Telangana's senior counsel argued that the PRLIS, or palamuru Ranga reddy Lift Irrigation Scheme, was started by the former ap in 2013 and that telangana had begun work on the project by switching the source of drawal from the jurala project to srisailam while keeping the amount of ayacut to be fed constant.
The Apex Council was the only competent body to approve the projects, according to Telangana's legal representative, and AP's argument against the PRLIS was not admissible before the Tribunal. Before the supreme court in 2016, both states had stipulated that the Apex Council has authority over matters pertaining to the building of the PRLIS project.
In accordance with the supreme Court's directives, the Apex Council meeting was conducted in 2016 to make a decision. In contrast, ap has submitted their complaint to the Tribunal contesting the project's allotment of promised water. The attorney for ap Umapathi argued that Apex Counsel lacks the authority to make decisions.
Telangana's senior counsel argued that the PRLIS, or palamuru Ranga reddy Lift Irrigation Scheme, was started by the former ap in 2013 and that telangana had begun work on the project by switching the source of drawal from the jurala project to srisailam while keeping the amount of ayacut to be fed constant.
The Apex Council was the only competent body to approve the projects, according to Telangana's legal representative, and AP's argument against the PRLIS was not admissible before the Tribunal. Before the supreme court in 2016, both states had stipulated that the Apex Council has authority over matters pertaining to the building of the PRLIS project.
In accordance with the supreme Court's directives, the Apex Council meeting was conducted in 2016 to make a decision. In contrast, ap has submitted their complaint to the Tribunal contesting the project's allotment of promised water. The attorney for ap Umapathi argued that Apex Counsel lacks the authority to make decisions.