BBMB row: Punjab seeks modification of HC order; Centre, Haryana to respond
Just about two days after the state of Punjab moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court for recalling or modifying May 6 order in the BBMB case, a division bench today called for a reply from the Board, Haryana and the Centre.
“Let reply to this application preferred by the state of Punjab be filed by the non-applicant/petitioner Board as well as the state of Haryana and Union of India, before the date fixed,” the bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel asserted before fixing the case for May 20 — virtually advancing the date of hearing in the main case from May 28.
The state was seeking the modification of the May 6 order, vide which the bench – among other things — had directed Punjab to abide by a decision taken in the matter during a meeting chaired by the Union Home Secretary.
Punjab, through senior advocate and former advocate-general Gurminder Singh, had contended that the Union of India submitted before the bench on a previous date of hearing that the meeting was convened on May 2 under Union Home Secretary on release of extra 4,500 cusec to Haryana. A press note in this regard was also placed on record.
The court, on May 6, was given the impression that the meeting was held on the issue of extra water release, but there was no specific agenda. Taking up the matter, it directed the state on that date to abide by the May 2 meeting decision. The direction, however, was passed as a result of completely erroneous, factually incorrect and legally unsustainable submissions by BBMB, Haryana and Union of India.
The correct facts came to light when the Union of India produced before the court a letter dated May 9, along with undated record of discussions of the May 2 meeting. It was apparent that the Union Home Secretary was not competent to decide the issue regarding allocation of water. The minutes were also not circulated to the states concerned before May 9
“It is amply clear that the direction is based on non-disclosure of true facts by the parties concerned. It was causing undue harassment and irreparable loss to the state… Once it is admitted that the home secretary is not competent authority to take a decision under the relevant rules, the state is not legally bound to comply with the direction,” the petition said.
