SC questions filing of writ petition by Telangana over Polavaram Irrigation Project in Andhra

New Delhi, Jan 5 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Congress-ruled Telangana government whether its writ petition challenging the expansion of the Polavaram Multipurpose Irrigation Project in Andhra Pradesh was maintainable.
     A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said if the issue pertains to various states and the Centre, the better legal course would be to file a plea under Article 131 of the Constitution rather than filing a writ petition under Article 32 which permits any person to move the top court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
     While asking the Telangana government to consider filing a lawsuit under Article 131 of the Constitution, the top court asked the parties to think about "mediation" to resolve the dispute.
     "We will hear both sides and hope you come up with a viable solution," the CJI said.
     Article 131 of the Constitution grants the top court original jurisdiction to hear disputes between the Centre and states or between states themselves, particularly concerning legal rights, ensuring that a single authoritative body resolves these critical federal issues.
     Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Telangana government, sought time to apprise the court whether the state will be filing a lawsuit under Article 131 of the Constitution.
     The bench was hearing a plea filed by the Telangana government against the Centre's extension of financial assistance to Andhra Pradesh to expand the Polavaram Project.
     The plea also challenges the grant of environmental clearance for the project and alleges that the detailed project report (DPR) violated the Central Water Commission's (CWC's) recommendations.
     At the outset, the bench said, "We are only on the issue of whether you should file a suit or a writ petition."
     The bench also noted that the Centre is spearheading the Polavaram Irrigation Project as well and that a committee has been set up to consider such issues under it.
     "The apprehension of yours is that the building of the canal will reduce your flood water; this irrigation project is a national project, nothing can be added or diverted or modified without prior permission of the Centre. The committee is set up; you please go and represent before that committee," the bench said.
     At the outset, Singhvi said that the petition was maintainable as this could not be considered a "water dispute" and does not fall under the purview of any tribunal under the Inter-state Water Disputes Act.
     The bench repeated and said the disputes between two states have been addressed in the form of a lawsuit under Article 131 and not Article 32.
     Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Balbir Singh and Jaideep Gupta appeared for Andhra Pradesh.
     Rohatgi said the DPR was sanctioned only after taking into consideration the comments of other stakeholders, like Maharashtra, Telangana and Karnataka.
     Referring to the state reorganisation law, Balbir Singh said that Telangana was deemed to have consented to the project which started in 2004.
     According to the award and the CWC, the approved amount of water to be diverted was 80 Thousand Million Cubic Feet (TMC) of water to the Krishna River through its canal system for use in the Krishna Delta System.
     However, Telangana said that the expansion would propose to divert 200 TMC instead without the requisite approvals.

(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)