State happy with award

Krishna dispute: K'taka to decide next move after talks

Supreme Court advocate Mohan Katarki, who appeared for Karnataka during the four-year long hearing along with his seniors F S Nariman, Anil Divan and SS Javali, told Deccan Herald that the “Tribunal has done a great job”.

Katarki added: "We have some reservations with regard to allocation of surplus water on quantitative basis. We will look into the full report and work out our next course of action".

While also welcoming the verdict, Andhra Pradesh advocate Sudarshan Reddy said AP would stand to gain as the last lower riparian state receiving the flowing down water. "We have nothing to fear. If there is shortage of water, then the Krishna Implementation Board will take care of it", he added.

Any state which is party to a water dispute under a Tribunal can  either file an affidavit under Sec 5(3) of Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 before the Tribunal for `explanation or guidance' of the decision, or file a Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court challenging the correctness of the decision rendered by the Tribunal.

A state should move the Tribunal within 90 days of the award being pronounced, failing which the Union government can notify the order. The notification can be done even if the states choose to challenge the tribunal's order at the Supreme Court.

The Cauvery water dispute is still pending before both the Tribunal set up for the purpose as well as the Apex Court although the CWDT pronounced its order in early 2007.