K’taka to file new river plea
Even as the Supreme Court declared that its direction to Karnataka to implement the decision of the Cauvery River Authority (CRA) to release 9,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu till October 15 would not be an impediment to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh taking a call on a request by Karnataka to review the decision, Dr Singh rejected the plea from both the ruling BJP and the Opposition Congress from Karnataka, stating only the CRA could take a view on the matter. In view of this, Karnataka has decided to file a review petition before the CRA on Tuesday. [Later, speaking to reporters, Karnataka chief minister Jagdish Shettar said the state would file a review petition before the CRA Tuesday and demanded that the PM take up the issue immediately, reported PTI.]
Talking to reporters, Union water resources minister P.K. Bansal said, “Both the groups sought a stay. The PM told them it is not permissible as there is no mechanism under CRA to change its award. It is not the decision of the PM but of the CRA. The CRA will have to meet again for any such thing.” He added that Dr Singh told both groups he would act keeping in mind the interests of both states.
Congress leaders S.M. Krishna, M. Kharge and K.H. Muniyappa, and 16 BJP MPs led by Ananth Kumar and Venkaiah Naidu, called on Dr Singh separately and requested him to review the decision. The CRA, chaired by the PM and comprising the CMs of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Kerala, besides the Union water resources minister, had on September 19 directed Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu daily between September 20 and October 15.
On the meeting of the Cauvery Monitoring Committee, comprising the Union water resources secretary and chief secretaries of the three states and one UT, which is to meet here October 11 to decide on the release of water by Karnataka after October 15, Mr Bansal said, “The Cauvery Monitoring Committee will decide on the issue in consultation with the states. If it fails, the issue may be referred back to the CRA. Yes, CRA could be convened again in such a scenario.”
Post new comment