Delayed water release worsened Punjab floods: BBMB tells high court

The Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) today told the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the flood situation in Punjab would not have been “so grave” had the water been released at the appropriate time.

Appearing on BBMB’s behalf before the division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, senior advocate Rajesh Garg contended: “The jurisdiction and power of BBMB is that, according to seasonal conditions —monsoon, summer, etc. — water should be regulated month-wise. That does not alter the overall share position of the states. This was the position before the writ petition came up (for hearing at the initial stage).”

He added that the issue and the challenge before the court related only to a one-month alteration of 8,500 cubic feet of water. “That situation is now gone. Now had they released the water at that time, the flood situation in the state would not have been that grave. They (Punjab) refused to release the water. BBMB had no option but, in the monsoon, to release excess water downstream,” Garg added. He was assisted in the matter by advocate Neha Matharoo.

Taking a note of the arguments, and counter-arguments by Punjab Advocate-General Maninderjeet Singh Bedi, the bench asked for the Bhakra Beas Management Rules of 1974 to “know the contours of jurisdiction available to BBMB”. The court also called for “the relevant Act” under which the said rules have been framed.

The bench was hearing Punjab’s challenge to the April 23 minutes of a BBMB meeting, where the board recorded a decision to allow Haryana up to 8,500 cusecs of water after citing an acute drinking water crisis and canal repair work.

Bedi submitted that distribution of Ravi-Beas waters was governed by the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act and not by board resolutions. “BBMB has no jurisdiction to release water to any state beyond its share. This is strictly within the statutory framework, and altering it is impermissible,” he argued.

The bench, during the course of hearing, asked: “Why don’t you represent to the central government?”

Responding to the query, Bedi submitted that the matter was sent to the Union of India in accordance with the provisions of the rules. He added Haryana was the aggrieved party as the state was demanding the water from Punjab’s share after exhausting its share. “Please file the rules and we will see,” the bench asserted before adjourning the hearing.