India News | Haryana, BBMB, Centre File Replies to Punjab's Plea on Review of HC Order

Chandigarh, May 20 (PTI) Haryana, BBMB and the Centre on Tuesday filed their replies on Punjab's plea seeking a review or modification of its May 6 order to release 4,500 cusecs of extra water to Haryana.

A bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel granted one day to the state of Punjab to respond to the replies filed by Haryana, Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB)and the Union government.

Also Read | Kempaiah Somashekar New Manipur HC CJ: President Appoints Karnataka HC Judge as Chief Justice of Manipur High Court.

The court has fixed May 22 as the next date of hearing, said BBMB's counsel Rajesh Garg.

The high court on May 6 had directed the State of Punjab to abide by Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan's May 2 decision.

Also Read | Tamil Nadu Hit With Sex Scandal: DMK Sacks Worker After Wife Accuses Him of Torture, Grooming Girls for Sex With Politicians.

The Union home secretary had on May 2 chaired a high-level meeting, which advised to implement the Bhakra Beas Management Board's (BBMB's) decision to release 4,500 cusecs of extra water from the Bhakra Dam to Haryana for the next eight days to meet the state's urgent water requirements.

Punjab and Haryana are at loggerheads over the distribution of water with the AAP government refusing to share water from the Bhakra dam, saying the neighbouring state has already utilised its share of water.

In its reply to Punjab's plea, Haryana submitted that the application filed by the state of Punjab is a "complete abuse of the process of the court with an ulterior motive to wriggle out from the proceedings of contempt".

The BBMB, in its response, alleged that non-compliance of the orders of this court was a deliberate attempt to buy time to deny a particular state its share of water.

"'Despite the clear order passed by this Court on May 6, deploying the police force at Bhakra-Nangal Dam and forcibly taking over the operation and regulation thereof shows the defiant and obstructive attitude of the state of Punjab towards the statutory authorities as well as this Court," said the reply filed by M L Rana, chief engineer, Irrigation and Water Resources, Haryana.

In its reply, Haryana submitted that it is not the first time that Punjab has adopted a defiant attitude towards the statutory authorities and even courts.

"A decree passed by the high court way back in the year 2002 directing the state of Punjab to complete the construction of SYL (Sutlej Yamuna Link) canal in its territory has not yet been complied with by the State of Punjab," it pointed out.

The matter of equitable distribution of water amongst the partner states is a matter of lifeline of a particular State and no one State can forcibly enforce its unilateral and whimsical decision through the use of force, read the Haryana reply.

"Water as released by the BBMB is the lifeline of the citizens of Haryana, particularly the farmers of Haryana, as the livelihood of the farmers depends on the water. The present action of the State of Punjab is completely unconstitutional and illegal," it stated.

The reply stated that an additional 4,500 cusecs of water was demanded for drinking purposes but it was not supplied by Punjab.

"As on today, 43 water works tanks of the Public Health Department, Haryana are not filled. So there is a dire need of water for drinking purposes," it submitted, adding that the dispute in the present case is not about the sharing of water.

It is about the management, regulation and release of water which is always done by an expert body. In the present case, the said expert body is BBMB, it said.

It claimed that Punjab, over the past 21 years, utilised 22.67 per cent more than its allocated share, whereas Haryana has used only about one-third of that excess --- 7.89 per cent.

"Since beginning, the state of Punjab is misleading this Court by giving wrong facts and projecting a picture as if the state of Haryana is taking the share of Punjab. The true picture is altogether different, and it is very unfortunate that the State of Punjab is resorting to bullying tactics," read the Haryana reply.

The BBMB, in its reply, stated that in case there was any infirmity in the May 6 judgment, an application could have been filed by Punjab immediately after the judgment and not after the direction issued by the court.

It submitted that even if it is assumed that the court recalls its order of releasing water, the main direction of this court regarding the non-interference in the functioning of the Nangal dam by Punjab officials still stands and so do the contempt proceedings arising therefrom.

The BBMB submitted that it is now contended by Punjab that the need for seeking additional water by the state of Haryana no longer exists.

"It is abundantly clear that non-compliance of orders of this Court was a deliberate attempt to buy time to deny a particular state its share of water, for which the Board Officials were prevented from operating the dam apparatus," it said

Senior advocate Gurminder Singh and additional advocate general Chanchal Singla represented Punjab.

Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain and senior panel counsel Dheeraj Jain represented the Centre.

Advocate-General Pravindra Singh Chauhan and Additional AG Deepak Balyan appeared for Haryana.

In its petition, Punjab had contended that the Union home secretary was not the appropriate authority to deal with the issue related to the release of water.

The HC had in its May 6 order also restrained Punjab and any of its functionaries, including police personnel, from "interfering" in the day-to-day functioning, operation and regulation of the Bhakra Nangal Dam.

Punjab and Haryana are at loggerheads over the distribution of water with the AAP government refusing to share water from the Bhakra dam, saying the neighbouring state has already utilised its share of water. PTI CHS

--

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)