NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today reserved its order on maintainability of appeals filed by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala against the 2007 award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT).
"Judgement reserved. Interim order of October 18 to continue till further orders," a bench of Justices Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar said.
The bench asked the parties to file their written submissions by October 24 and said it would pass the order thereafter.
The Centre, through Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, had raised a preliminary objection claiming that the CWDT award amounted to a final decree in the dispute and the apex court had no jurisdiction to hear appeals against the award of the tribunal.
Continuing its argument, Karnataka today said that appeals filed by the state against the award of the tribunal was maintainable.
Noted jurist and senior advocate Fali S Nariman, appearing for Karnataka, said the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeals filed by the state against the award of tribunal.
Senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for Tamil Nadu, also contended that the appeals were maintainable and no statute can take away the powers of the apex court.
"Section 6(2) of Inter-state Water Disputes Act, 1956 cannot oust Supreme Court's constitutional appellate powers given under Article 136 of the Constitution," Naphade said.
Similarly, Kerala also supported the stand of Karnataka and said that the appeals were maintainable.
However, Puducherry supported the stand of the Centre that the appeals filed by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala are not maintainable.
Rohatgi reiterated his yesterday's argument that Supreme Court had no juridiction to adjudicate the appeals pertaining to the dispute relating to use, distribution and control of inter-state water or river valley.
"The appeals filed by the states are not maintainable as per article 131 and 262 of the Constitution and the provisions of Inter-state River Water Disputes Act, 1956," he said.
The attorney general said as per the constitutional provisions, the inter-state water dispute tribunal is headed by a retired Supreme Court or High Court judge and its decree has a force like that of a decree of the Supreme Court and thus the apex court cannot hear the appeals against its own order.