Supreme Court Questions Maintainability of Telangana’s Plea Against AP’s Polavaram-Nallamalla Sagar Link Project

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the writ petition in New Delhi on Monday after Telangana challenged the extension of financial assistance to AP to undertake the PNLP and also the issuance of environmental clearance for the project and alleged that the Detailed Project Report violated the recommendations of the Central Water Commission.

“We are just on the issue of whether you should file a lawsuit or a writ petition,” the CJI said.

The bench noted that the Central government has expedited the execution of the Polavaram irrigation project and a committee was recently constituted to consider water sharing issues between AP and TG.

The bench observed that the Polavaram project was a national project and nothing could be added, altered or changed without the prior permission of the Centre, and a committee was constituted and asked the TG petitioner to represent the matter before it.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Telangana, argued that the writ petition was maintainable, stating that the issue was not limited to water dispute and did not fall within the jurisdiction of any court under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. He pointed out certain violations and prayed that the expansion of the project be stopped. It also argued that the expansion of the project would be aimed at diverting excess flood waters from Telangana and was in violation of the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal’s order.

As the bench appeared unconvinced about the maintainability of the writ petition, the senior counsel asked for the matter to be listed after a week for consideration of filing a suit.

Meanwhile, the bench has signaled the possibility of directing the legal committee to look into the matter in the current scenario.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Balbir Singh and Jaideep Gupta, appearing for Andhra Pradesh, stated that the DPR was approved only after taking into account the comments of other stakeholders such as Maharashtra, Telangana and Karnataka and also assumed Telangana’s consent to the main project initiated in 2004 through the AP Reorganization Act (2014). They stated that the petition was malicious and that was its sole purpose. The aim was to take the issue related to the central government to the highest court of the country.

Meanwhile, senior advocate Singhvi asked the committee to publish the matter on Friday and take directions on two matters: the committee’s powers to stop the project or file a lawsuit.

The CJI posted the matter for next hearing on January 12 and observed that mediation should be considered and said they would listen to both parties and advised them to find a workable solution.

It can be said that the EP has called for bids to acquire the PNLP and has not finalized the tenders yet.