Team Herald
PANJIM: The hearing on the water
sharing of River Mhadei before the Mhadei Water Dispute Tribunal has strengthened
Goa’s case with State witness, environmentalist Rajendra Kerkar, giving
accurate replies to the cross examination on environment, forest and wildlife
for the State.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Kerkar was cross examined by Karnataka
and was posed a pointed question on the difference between ‘environment’ and
‘ecology’ wherein he answered that ‘environment’ is larger and ‘ecology’ is a
part of it.
The witness was also asked questions
such as since when is land a concern for environmentalists to which he answered
saying, “Land has been a matter of concern for human beings since the Neolithic
age when human beings began doing agriculture.”
Thereafter the witness was asked as to
whether land would turn saline if a huge quantum of water was given and turn
barren on scarcity of water. Kerkar, who has several environment-related
researches to his credit, denied the suggestions and clarified that if forests
are destroyed on account of diversion of water then the land would turn saline.
Thereafter, the Maharashtra counsel
cross examined Kerkar, putting forth the suggestion the diversion by
Maharashtra would not cause an effect on the environment. Kerkar denied the
suggestion.
The next witness for Goa, Water
Resources Department Chief Engineer S T Nadkarni deposed on the availability of
water for Goa’s use and demands but even before the examination-in-chief
commenced, the Karnataka counsel objected to the former’s affidavit stating
that the same is an affidavit on the aspect of hydrology and cannot be
permitted in view of the hydrology evidence being closed. He argued it was in
violation and transgression of the Tribunal’s earlier orders.
This objection was countered by Additional
Solicitor General of India, Atmaram Nadkarni, who is appearing for Goa, by
stating that the affidavit is purely on the aspect of Goa’s water demands.
The Tribunal, after considering the
rival contentions, passed a detailed order, wherein it overruled the objections
raised by Karnataka. The Tribunal also held that it is of the view that the
deposition of the second witness deserves to be taken into consideration as a
whole and cannot be said to be in contravention of any of the earlier orders
passed by this Tribunal. The cross examination will continue on Friday.
