High Court rejects Punjab’s plea for recalling order in BBMB case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed Punjab’s plea seeking recall or modification of its May 6 order in the BBMB case. Among other things, the court in the order had directed the State to abide by a decision taken on May 2 during a meeting chaired by the Union Home Secretary.

Punjab’s stand in the matter was that the Bench was given the impression that release of 4,500 cusecs of extra water to Haryana over a period of eight days was decided during the meeting. But that was not the case. The meeting had dealt with law and order issues and had no bearing on water allotment.

The Bench was assisted by senior advocate Gurminder Singh on Punjab’s behalf, while the Government of India was represented by Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain Jain with senior counsel Dheeraj Jain.

Alleging concealment of material facts by the BBMB while seeking recalling of the order, Punjab had argued during the course of hearing that a letter dated April 29 by Haryana requesting the Chairman to refer the matter to the Central Government under Rule 7 of the Bhakra Beas Management Board Rules was not brought to the court’s notice. Rule 7 says any disagreement involving policy or inter-state rights must be referred to the Centre for a binding decision.

The State had added that the BBMB Chairman was rendered “functus officio” to adjudicate the issue once Haryana’s letter was forwarded to the Centre. It was then for the Centre to decide the issue in accordance with Rule 7

Analysing the provision, the Bench held that a valid reference to the Central Government arose only in case of clear difference in opinion among the members regarding policy or the rights of any of the participating States. A similar power to represent to the Central Government through the Chairman was given to each of the member States “who chooses to dissent”. The dispute was then required to be decided by the Central Government.

The Bench observed Haryana was aggrieved by non-execution of a resolution in meeting dated April 28, especially regarding release of 8500 cusecs of water to it. “In essence, the letter dated April 29 does not raise any dispute or difference of opinion of State of Haryana, but merely seeks implementation of the resolution dated April 28 of BBMB’s technical committee. As such this letter dated April 29 of State of Haryana cannot be treated as a reference to the Central Government,” the Bench asserted.

The court added the BBMB was free to act in accordance with law as the April 29 letter was not a reference to the Government of India. The Bench added petitions were filed challenging Punjab’s deployment of police at Bhakra Nangal Dam and related water regulation offices, and on the issue of releasing 8,500 cusecs of water through the Bhakra Canal. The matter was disposed of on May 6 in view of an emergent situation.

“Any delay in resolving the dispute would have caused irreparable damage to millions of residents of different States, including Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi… As such, there was neither any occasion nor need to deal with elaborate contentions of the rival parties.”

Before parting with the case, the Bench asserted Punjab could make a reference to the Central Government under Rule 7, if it chose to.