HC permits Punjab to finalise de-silting tenders, mandates strict compliance with Centre's guidelines

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed the State of Punjab to go ahead with finalisation of e-tenders for de-silting works necessitated by recent floods, but imposed the condition that the process must strictly adhere to the guidelines issued by the Union Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, as well as the state’s own Detailed Project Report (DPR).

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry clarified that the permission was being granted subject to the outcome of the pending petitions and in view of the urgency posed by the flood situation in the state.

“After hearing the counsel representing the parties, considering the present day situation owing to the floods in the State of Punjab and in the interest of justice and also taking into account the assurance of Advocate-General. Punjab, this Court subject to outcome in this petition allows the State of Punjab and its functionaries to proceed further towards finalisation of impugned e-tenders subject however to the strict adherence to guidelines laid down by Government of India Ministry of Environment and Climate Change dated July 12, 2023, and also the DPR.”

At the onset, Advocate-General Maninderjeet Singh Bedi submitted that the State had earlier assured the court that it would not finalise e-tender notices issued by Water Resources Department until a decision in the matter.

Citing the need to immediately clear silt deposits after the floods, the AG however sought permission to proceed, while assuring compliance with all environmental safeguards.

“The finalisation of the e-tenders is necessary for the purpose of de-silting and as such seeks permission of the court for that purpose,” he added.

The developments took place during the hearing of a bunch of petitions filed in public interest against the Union of India and other respondents by Sehajpreet Singh. The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Gurminder Singh with advocate RPS Bara, had during the course of hearing expressed serious apprehensions that the de-silting process could be misused as a garb for mining.

It was argued that mining required statutory permissions and carried commercial value. De-silting, on the other hand, did not attract such requirements, as its purpose was river management and silt had no commercial value.

Gurminder Singh contended that tenders were a permissible route for carrying out de-silting operations, but any deviation risked opening the door to illegal mining activities under the pretext of de-silting for post-flood management.

The court recorded the state’s assurance that finalisation of tenders would be done “in consonance with and in terms of the guidelines” issued by the Centre and in line with the DPR, and allowed the state to move ahead.