Bangalore: The former Irrigation Minister H.N. Nanje Gowda has said that the split in the Cauvery tribunal and the order of the two members who have preferred the constitution of an expert committee to look into the crop pattern and the water requirements of the four riparian States, is a matter of serious concern for Karnataka which has been awaiting the final award of the tribunal for a long time.

In a statement here, he said the tribunal in the interest of fair play and justice should withdraw the direction on constitution of an expert committee. Instead, it should immediately pronounce its final award.

The former Minister said the Union Government should intervene in the matter and file an affidavit before the tribunal seeking a quick disposal of the matter. The Centre should also convey to the tribunal that it did not agree with the recommendation to constitute an expert committee since it would only delay the pronouncement of the award.

Mr. Nanje Gowda, who is also a former MP, said the tribunal should pronounce its final award in another two months which would enable Karnataka to allocate water to the areas for which the irrigation potential had already been created. As per the 1992 interim award of the Cauvery Tribunal, irrigation for the Cauvery basin area has been restricted to 11.2 lakh acres. Going by the demand of the State, Cauvery water was required for another 6.6 lakh acres. Farmers in the Cauvery basin were also awaiting the final award which would go a long way in meeting the water requirements in areas for which the potential had been created, but water was yet to made available.

The former Minister said the interim award of the tribunal was not based on facts and figures. As per the documents submitted to the tribunal by the riparian States, Karnataka was eligible for a higher allocation of the Cauvery waters. Any delay in the pronouncement of the award would result in the people doubting the dispensation of justice by the tribunal, he said. The people of Karnataka would also surmise that the tribunal was "partisan" and was against the State.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail