![KWDT-II sets April 29 deadline for A.P. to file statement in water dispute](https://th-i.thgim.com/public/news/national/telangana/s87qmc/article68042667.ece/alternates/LANDSCAPE_1200/Srisailam_31072023.jpg)
KWDT-II sets April 29 deadline for A.P. to file statement in water dispute
The Hindu
Telangana alleges that A.P. is delaying proceedings in tribunal due to its pending case in Supreme Court
The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT-II) headed by Justice Brijesh Kumar has turned down the plea of Andhra Pradesh seeking time till June-end for filing its statement of case (SoC) in the matter of reference made by the Centre on October 6 last year for adjudication of water shares of Telangana and A.P. out of the en bloc allotment made to erstwhile combined A.P., but has given time till April 29.
The tribunal has asked A.P. to file its SoC on or before April 29 and replies by the two sides within two week from April 29 even as it posted the next hearing from May 15 to 17. The tribunal observed that A.P. sought extension of time in the last application too but did not file SoC even after six weeks’ time granted initially and later, an extension of two weeks.
After hearing the arguments put forward by senior counsels C.S. Vaidyanathan and Jaideep Gupta representing Telangana and A.P., respectively, in New Delhi on Monday, the tribunal — comprising its chairman Brijesh Kumar and members Ram Mohan Reddy and S. Talapatra — stated in its order on Monday that the two States did not file their SoC and replies in eight weeks and the last extension of time was given till March 20.
On March 20, Telangana had filed its SoC but A.P. moved an interim application on April 4 seeking time till June-end citing the model code of conduct. However, Telangana filed a counter to A.P.’s application the very next day.
On Monday, the A.P. side argued that they could not file the SoC with the model code of conduct being in force from April 16 as it involves policy decisions. They were seeking time till June-end as the Lok Sabha election results would be declared by that time. Opposing A.P.’s plea, Telangana pointed out that it was only a delaying tactic and that they were aware of the impending elections by late December or early January.
Telangana produced evidence that A.P. was aware of the elections and argued that model code of conduct would not bar filing pleadings in pending cases. They mentioned that they too had filed SoC on March 20, though Lok Sabha elections were due on the same date as in A.P.
When A.P. asked to treat its plea as a last chance, Telangana pointed out that they had said same thing last time too. They mentioned A.P. was planning to delay the hearing before KWDT-II as it was pursuing a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to stall the present proceedings (in KWDT-II) and that the case was posted for May 8.