15-05-2025
High court seeks reply from BBMB, Haryana, Centre on Punjab's plea to recall order on additional water release
Chandigarh: The Punjab and
high court on Wednesday asked the
(BBMB), Haryana, and the Centre to submit a response to a Punjab govt petition seeking a recall or modification of its May 6 order directing it to comply with the decision of the
's meeting on releasing additional water to Haryana from the Bhakra next hearing is on May 20, when the issue related to contempt against officials of the Punjab govt for non-compliance with the high court order is pending for the hearing, senior advocate Gurminder Singh, representing the Punjab govt, argued that the BBMB had effectively obtained a mandamus against the law through misrepresentation of facts.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Singh pointed out that constitutional provisions restrict the jurisdiction of courts in interstate water response, the BBMB's counsel questioned the Punjab govt's move to file a modification petition, suggesting that the correct course of action would have been for Punjab to file a writ of prohibition against the decisions made by the fresh plea claims that the May 6 high court order was passed after the BBMB concealed material facts in its original petition. The state argued that matters involving policy decision or issues affecting state rights should be referred to the central govt through the chairman of the board. However, despite the matter already being referred to the Centre for a decision under Rule 7 of BBMB Rules 1974, the board convened a meeting on April 30 and decided to release of 8,500 cusecs of water to Haryana, Punjab application further highlighted that while the BBMB petition referenced the indent made by Haryana, it concealed the fact that Haryana had sought to refer the matter to the central contended that a decision to release an additional 4,500 cusecs of water to Haryana was made in the May 2 meeting, but it was not brought to the notice of the high court that the Union home secretary was not the appropriate competent authority to adjudicate as per Rule 7 of BBMB Rules 1974."The applicant state is aggrieved by the direction passed as a result of completely erroneous, factually incorrect, and legally unsustainable submissions made by the BBMB, the state of Haryana, and the Union of India before the high court. The correct facts came to light when the Union of India produced before this court the letter dated May 9, along with the undated record of discussion of the meeting dated May 2. It is apparent that neither was the Union home secretary competent to decide the issue regarding the allocation of water under Rule 7 BBMB Rules of 1974, nor were the minutes ever circulated to the concerned states before May 9, which was the last date of hearing in the matter," the counsel for the Punjab submitted before the 121165711 413 |
