New Delhi: The differences between the Chairman of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, Justice N.P. Singh, and members N.S. Rao and Sudhir Narain seem to have been resolved. They have agreed that there was no need for further arguments. They also reserved the verdict after 16 years of marathon proceedings.

The differences arose on the release of the assessors' report on groundwater availability and requirement. While the Chairman asserted that there was no such report, the members, on July 10, said they would pass orders in this regard.

This division prompted the Tribunal to seek an extension of six months as its tenure comes to end on August 6. The Centre's order in this regard is awaited.

Tribunal constituted in 1990

Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Pondichery are parties before the Tribunal, constituted on June 2, 1990. It gave its interim award on June 25, 1991, directing Karnataka to release 205 tmcft of water every year to Tamil Nadu. In April, all the States completed their arguments, and filed a joint memorandum to this effect.

However, the two members released the confidential reports of the assessors, and sought the response of the States.

Further arguments

During the hearing on July 10, all the States said they were not interested in any further arguments. They impressed on the Tribunal the need to give its final award. However, Mr. Rao and Mr. Narain indicated that they would pass some order on the groundwater requirement, and adjourned the proceedings.

In Thursday's order, they said that on July 14, they asked the assessors to clarify whether any note/reports with regard to surface water and groundwater had been submitted by them either to the Chairman or to the members.

Conclusion of arguments

In the reply on July 20, the assessors said: "It appears that the Tribunal did not direct us to prepare any comprehensive report on the subject of surface water or groundwater, nor was there any occasion for us to initiate and circulate any report to the Chairman and the Members after conclusion of arguments [on this aspect] on February 11, 2004."

The Members said: "In view of the above clarification made by the assessors, the question/occasion for supplying copies to the parties of any note/reports regarding groundwater and surface water does not arise."

By another order, the Chairman and the members said they were reserving the verdict on adjudication of the final award as arguments had already been concluded on April 21.

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