Bengaluru: Goa Advocate General Devidas Pangam on Tuesday February 14 said the Supreme Court’s order in the Mhadei water dispute case against Karnataka is a positive sign for the Coastal State.
According to him, as per the apex court’s order on Monday, Karnataka cannot carry out diversion of the river water without obtaining the necessary permissions.
“Whatever the Supreme Court has said in its order is a positive sign for us,” Pangam said.
Last month, Goa’s Chief Wildlife Warden issued a notice to Karnataka, asking the neighbouring State to stop the diversion of water from the wildlife sanctuary.
“It is about how one cannot divert the water from a wildlife sanctuary. We have said that as per section 29 of the wildlife protection act, water cannot be diverted. If the Chief Wildlife Warden gives order in our favour, then Karnataka will not be in a position to divert the water. This is an important issue,” he said.
“Secondly, the Supreme Court has reiterated its order given in 2020 that till Karnataka obtains all required permissions, it will not be able to go ahead with its works,” he said.
“Karnataka has told the Supreme Court that they have not got permission and work has not been started. While hearing this, the court gave us liberty to re-apply if required,” Pangam said.
According to him, the Supreme Court has fixed the matter for final hearing in July, but in case Karnataka goes ahead with construction activities, then Goa has the liberty to appeal before the apex court.
He said that henceforth, “it will not be possible for Karnataka to divert water as the state has become legally strong”.
“We are taking actions… wherever we want to block Karnataka while taking permission from forest or wildlife, we will do it,” he said.
“Now, we have to ensure that these proceedings which have started at different levels should be taken to a logical conclusion and positive direction,” Pangam said.
The Goa government had sought an interim stay on the Central Water Commission’s nod to the controversial Kalasa-Bhanduri project. However, the apex court had refused to grant an interim stay.
