Latest news with #BBMBRulesof1974
Time of India
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
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 |
Time of India
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Punjab files plea to recall high court order on Bhakra water release
Chandigarh: The Punjab govt has filed a petition in the Punjab and Haryana high court seeking a recall or modification of the court's May 6 order directing the state to comply with a decision made during a May 2 meeting chaired by the Union home secretary regarding the release of additional water from the Bhakra Dam to Punjab govt's plea contends that the May 6 order was based on misleading information and concealment of key facts by the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB).According to Punjab, the board's petition failed to disclose that the matter had already been referred to the central govt for decision-making under Rule 7 of the 1974 BBMB Rules. Despite this, a meeting was convened by the BBMB on April 30, which, without proper adjudication by the competent authority, decided to release 8,500 cusecs of water to also informed that in the petition filed by BBMB, although a reference was made to the indent made by Haryana, the material fact regarding the state's request to refer the matter to the central govt was also pointed out that the Union home secretary, who chaired the May 2 meeting, was not the appropriate authority to decide on water allocation issues according to Rule 7 of the BBMB Rules. The state also mentioned that the meeting convened on May 2 was related to law and order concerns and could not legally decide on water allocation."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, Haryana, and the Union of India before the HC. 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 present matter," said Punjab's official spokesperson said that the Punjab govt argued in the petition that the BBMB was attempting to "illegally divert Punjab's water to Haryana at the behest of the BJP-led Centre".The Punjab govt said that no official minutes of the May 2 meeting were ever provided to state authorities. Only a press note was circulated, which cannot be considered an official record of decisions made, it said."How can an order be implemented when no formal decision was made in the first place?" questioned the state govt, saying that the BBMB overstepped its authority by attempting to release water to Haryana without completing the required legal Punjab govt highlighted that even the Centre failed to produce official minutes of the May 2 meeting when directed by the court, instead presenting only what they termed a "discussion record".The matter will come up for hearing on Secy Lacked Authority'Punjab argues that the Union home secretary, who chaired the May 2 meeting, lacked the legal authority to decide on water allocation, which should fall under a competent authority as per BBMB contends that no official minutes were recorded from the May 2 meeting; only a press note was shared, which cannot be treated as a formal decision document for court accuses BBMB and BJP-led central govt of trying to "illegally divert" water to 121109824 413 |
