Patna, Sept. 21: Patna High Court today directed the central government to constitute a tribunal to resolve the Sone water dispute as per an agreement of 1973.

The division bench of Justice S.K. Katriar and Justice A. Amanullah, while disposing of a public interest litigation, said in its order: “We direct Union of India to constitute a tribunal under the provisions of Inter-State Water Disputes Act…. Union shall keep in mind the provisions of river disputes act and Section 79 of Bihar Reorganisation Act and Section 76 of Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act.”

The bench passed the direction on a PIL filed by former legislator Saryu Roy seeking direction to the authorities concerned to stop the alleged misuse of Rihand reservoir water which was denying Bihar its legitimate share of water and depriving irrigation facilities in several districts. Roy said the Centre is required to constitute the tribunal within a year as per the Inter-State Water Disputes Act.

Under the Bansagar agreement of 1973, when Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh were undivided, the annual average water availability in the Sone river and its tributaries was assessed at 14.25 million acre feet (MAF). Of this, Bihar was to get 7.75 MAF, Madhya Pradesh was allocated 5.25 MAF while Uttar Pradesh was to get 1.25 MAF, Roy submitted.

Later explaining the bone of contention, Roy told The Telegraph that the Uttar Pradesh government constructed a dam on the Rihand river, which is located at Pipri in Sonbhadra district of the northern state, for its hydel power plants.

The dam on the Rihand, a tributary of the Sone, receives 3.50 MAF water from the river, which originates from the Matiranga hills, now in Chhattisgarh. As a result, Madhya Pradesh was allocated 0.91 MAF water from the upper basin of the Rihand reservoir and the remaining 2.59 MAF was to be given to Bihar. Uttar Pradesh has zero share in the Rihand dam for consumptive right, he added.

Roy alleged that the misuse of the Rihand reservoir water had denied Bihar its legitimate share of water and deprived irrigation facility in several districts. He said there has been 50 per cent water discharge from the Rihand reservoir to Bihar and most of the time erratic water discharge by Uttar Pradesh.

Roy sought a direction to restrain National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) and the Uttar Pradesh government from illegally withdrawing water from Rihand reservoir to generate around 30,000 MW of electricity. The Sone river commission and a team from Roorkee University had in their reports said nothing (no amount of water) would left for Bihar if Uttar Pradesh gave all the Rihand water to its and NTPC’s thermal plants.

Roy contended that water to NTPC is in gross violation of the Bansagar agreement and also flouts guidelines laid down in the National Water Policy of 1987 through which priority was accorded to drinking water and irrigation facilities for sharing the water from Rihand sub-basin.

NTPC, during the hearing, questioned the maintainability of the petition and submitted that under section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956, the high courts and the Supreme Court can’t entertain the petition relating to inter-state water dispute as it can be only dealt by a special tribunal.

Roy, however, while refuting NTPC’s contention, submitted that Bihar’s demand of its legitimate share of water was not an inter-state dispute and hence it cannot be covered by Article 262 of the Constitution which says that Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such inter-state water dispute.

Roy submitted that no state, be it Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh or Jharkhand, had raised the issue before the Centre, saying it was an inter-state water dispute.

While parting with the order, the bench appreciated Roy’s “patience” and the “ability” with which he assisted the court.

“Before we part, we must record our deep appreciation for Roy who maintained patience since 1993 when he moved the petition in the high court and also for his abilities with which he assisted the court while adjudicating the matter,” the bench said in its order.

“After 18 years of patience, you (the petitioner) have to make a beginning again in the case,” Justice A. Amanullah, the other judge on the bench, made the remark in lighter vein.