Team Herald
JANPATH, NEW DELHI: Final arguments in the Mhadei water dispute were adjourned till February 8 after Karnataka requested extension of time for arguments, which were earlier scheduled till February 22.
The Tribunal, headed by former Supreme Court Judge J M Panchal and members Vinay Mittal and retired judge P S Narayan, also granted Goa a week to respond to Karnataka’s reply on the interlocutory application (IA).
When the case resumed on Tuesday, Senior Counsel Atmaram Nadkarni sought time from the tribunal to respond to Karnataka’s reply on the IA filed by Goa claiming violation by Karnataka, as last month it had resumed work of Kalasa nallah thereby blocking the Mhadei tributary.
The final verdict in the main petition seeking diversion of 56 tmc of water into Malaprabha basin is expected in August, when the term of the Tribunal is slated to expire. The tribunal has already rejected Karnataka’s plea for diversion of 7.6 tmc of water.
Karnataka counsel Ashok Desai urged the tribunal to extend the time till December as time for arguments was insufficient.
The time scheduled for arguments was fixed till February 22 wherein Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra would get equal time to make their arguments. A decision whether to extend time or not will be taken by Thursday.
Speaking to Herald, State Advocate General (AG) Dattaprasad Lawande said that if Goa had to start arguments today and finish it in three or four days and if time was extended later on, then Karnataka and Maharashtra would benefit with more time.
“Hence our Senior Counsel Atmaram Nadkarni said it has to be decided whether time will be extended or not before hand and only then he can start arguments,” he said.
About the Goa’s IA, Lawande said, Karnataka has made a categorical statement saying they do not want to do any work and they do not intend to divert water.
“In view of that reply we said we will take instructions what is to be done regarding that IA and hence it has been kept on February 13,” Lawande said.
He added, “In case we have to proceed with the matter we will have to file another rejoinder and since the reply was sent yesterday the tribunal gave us more time.”
