Hyderabad: The Justice Brijesh Kumar Tribunal on Wednesday framed nine issues for arguments among the four Krishna river basin states Telangana, AP, Karnataka, Maharashtra and the Centre to adjudicate whether a specific clause in the AP Reorganisation Act is confined to the two Telugu-speaking states or all the four states.

The extended Tribunal, which is on a two-year extension, adjourned the sittings to February 25 to 27 to hear all parties. The issue is regarding Clause 89 of the AP Reorganisation Act, passed by Parliament in February 2014, which does not specify whether the work of the Tribunal is confined to Telangana and AP states or covers all four basin states.

In order to get clarity on the issue, the Tribunal chose to ask the four states and Centre to res-pond and, all of them sta-ted their stand in writing. On Wednesday, the Tri-bunal, meeting in Delhi, framed nine issues for arguments by the respondents.

The main issue is whether the Tribunal should cover two states or four, the eight others are its offshoots. The Tribunal that was constituted in February 2004 had given its award in 2010 and final award in 2013 after hearing objections from all the basin states.

Following a petition filed by the erstwhile government of undivided AP, the Supreme Court had directed the Centre not to notify the award in the Gazette which would make it operational.

Both Karnataka and Maharashtra moved the Supreme Court seeking vacation of its orders. Meanwhile, the newly formed Telangana government filed a special leave petition in the apex court seeking fresh allocation of Krishna waters and direction to the Brijesh Tribunal to restart its hearings. This particular matter is pending with the Supreme Court.

Karnataka and Maharashtra argued earlier that the Tribunal should be confined to the re-allocation of 1,004 TMC ft made to the undivided AP State between the two Telugu speaking states.

Telangana argued that unless the Tribunal take up fresh hearings to allow the new government present its views, it should not proceed with reallocation of 1,004 TMC ft, and AP took a similar stand. The Centre did not offer any suggestion except stating that it would abide by the Tribunal verdict.

Division Act Section 89: Terms of reference:

Notwithstanding the matters before the apex court, the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal got a fresh lease of life of two years consequent to the AP Reorganisation Act and started hearings the respective states as well as the Centre to get clarity on Clause 89 of the bifurcation Act.

Section 89 of the AP Reorganisation Act says: “The term of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal shall be extended with the following terms of reference, namely:

A. Shall make project-wise specific allocation, if such allocation have not been made by a Tribunal constituted under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956;

B. Shall determine an operational protocol for project-wise release of water in the event of deficit flows.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that the project specific awards already made by the Tribunal on or before the appointed day shall be binding on the successor States”.

Had there been clarity over the clause, the issue would have been solved long ago. Lakhs of rupees have been spent by all the respective states and Centre towards lawyers’ fee.