HC questions govt ability to handle state-wide environmental concerns

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has questioned the government’s credibility in tackling state-wide environmental concerns after it failed to check sewage overflow from a village pond for months.

Advertisement

The Bench recorded its “utter dissatisfaction” over the authorities’ shifting stand, repeated requests for more time, and failure to act on their own assurances, despite the filing of multiple affidavits in the court.

“The manner in which the department/authority concerned has been proposing to march ahead to cater the problem of a single village pond coaxes this court to record its utter dissatisfaction. If the department/authority concerned is, despite furnishing affidavits before this court to do the needful within a short span of time, struggling for the past so many months to resolve the issue of a single village pond, how can it be expected from the authorities/departments to resolve such issues likely to be prevailing in the whole state,” Justice Kuldeep Tiwari asserted.

The Bench said the authority concerned had been constantly changing its stand while furnishing response before the court and asking for “more and more time” to comply with its own assurance/undertaking.

The assertion came after a status report was submitted by Punjab Special Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, Uma Shankar Gupta claimed the village pond at Togan near Mullanpur was cleaned between September 4 and November 12, 2024, through mechanised de-watering and de-silting. It further claimed the authorities would implement a “model” to prevent further sullage discharge into the pond. The funds had already been allocated and the entire process would require around nine months.

The petitioner’s counsel, however, countered the claims stating that “not even a single brick has yet been laid” to support the disclosures made in the affidavits. “The intention of the authorities is just to render vague assurances before this court on affidavits, without there being any real intent to carry out the assured works within the assured period,” the Bench was told.