<p>Andhra Pradesh on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that its dispute with Telangana on sharing of Krishna river water required legal adjudication as there was no possibility of resolving it through mediation.</p>.<p>A bench, presided over by Chief Justice N V Ramana, posted the matter before another bench for considering the issue raised by Andhra Pradesh.</p>.<p>On Monday, CJI Ramana had suggested the resolving of the dispute through mediation, saying he could not legally adjudicate on the matter as he belonged to both the States.</p>.<p>Andhra Pradesh alleged that Telangana government has deprived it of its legitimate share of water for drinking and irrigation purposes in an “unconstitutional and illegal” manner. </p>.<p>It further contended that Telangana was refusing to follow decisions taken in the apex council constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, directions of Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) constituted under this Act and directions of the Centre. </p>.<p>"In view of no progress on notification of the jurisdiction of KRMB, Telangana by its acts of commission is seriously affecting the water supply to Andhra Pradesh for irrigation and other purposes," it said.<br /> <br />The plea contended that in Srisailam Dam project, the reservoir’s quantity has seriously depleted on account of use of water from there for generation of power in Telangana, which has been established by “daily readings” submitted by dam authorities. </p>.<p>The AP government said this has caused immense hardship for its people as availability of water has been seriously prejudiced by depletion in Srisailam Dam project as well as other projects such as the Nagarjuna Sagar Project and the Pulichintala Project. </p>.<p>“More significantly, State of Telangana is clearly in violation of a binding Award, popularly known as “Bachwat Award” made on 31.05.1976 and express provisions of the 2014 Act, whereby State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into Telangana and Andhra Pradesh," the petition filed through advocate Mahfooz A Nazki alleged. </p>
<p>Andhra Pradesh on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that its dispute with Telangana on sharing of Krishna river water required legal adjudication as there was no possibility of resolving it through mediation.</p>.<p>A bench, presided over by Chief Justice N V Ramana, posted the matter before another bench for considering the issue raised by Andhra Pradesh.</p>.<p>On Monday, CJI Ramana had suggested the resolving of the dispute through mediation, saying he could not legally adjudicate on the matter as he belonged to both the States.</p>.<p>Andhra Pradesh alleged that Telangana government has deprived it of its legitimate share of water for drinking and irrigation purposes in an “unconstitutional and illegal” manner. </p>.<p>It further contended that Telangana was refusing to follow decisions taken in the apex council constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, directions of Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) constituted under this Act and directions of the Centre. </p>.<p>"In view of no progress on notification of the jurisdiction of KRMB, Telangana by its acts of commission is seriously affecting the water supply to Andhra Pradesh for irrigation and other purposes," it said.<br /> <br />The plea contended that in Srisailam Dam project, the reservoir’s quantity has seriously depleted on account of use of water from there for generation of power in Telangana, which has been established by “daily readings” submitted by dam authorities. </p>.<p>The AP government said this has caused immense hardship for its people as availability of water has been seriously prejudiced by depletion in Srisailam Dam project as well as other projects such as the Nagarjuna Sagar Project and the Pulichintala Project. </p>.<p>“More significantly, State of Telangana is clearly in violation of a binding Award, popularly known as “Bachwat Award” made on 31.05.1976 and express provisions of the 2014 Act, whereby State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into Telangana and Andhra Pradesh," the petition filed through advocate Mahfooz A Nazki alleged. </p>
