TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

In HC, Haryana & Centre oppose Punjab plea in BBMB case

The Centre, Haryana and the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) today opposed the Punjab’s plea for recalling the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s May 6 order in the Bhakra water dispute. Haryana, among other things, described Punjab’s actions as unlawful,...
Punjab and Haryana High Court. File
Advertisement

The Centre, Haryana and the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) today opposed the Punjab’s plea for recalling the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s May 6 order in the Bhakra water dispute. Haryana, among other things, described Punjab’s actions as unlawful, misleading, and in breach of judicial orders.

Advertisement

Punjab had prayed for recalling or modifying the order, saying the court, on May 6, was given the impression that a meeting was held on May 2 on the issue of extra water release, but there was no specific agenda. The HC had then directed the state to abide by the May 2 meeting decision. Punjab said the direction, however, was passed as a result of erroneous, factually incorrect and legally unsustainable submissions by the BBMB, Haryana and the Union of India.

Advertisement

Responding to Punjab’s application, Haryana said water released by the BBMB was “the lifeline of the farmers of Haryana”. It submitted that deploying the police force at the Bhakra-Nangal Dam and forcibly taking over the operations and regulation, despite the clear order passed by this court on May 6 showed the “defiant and obstructive attitude of Punjab”, it added.

Taking up the matter, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel granted Punjab a day’s time to respond to the averments, even as its senior counsel Gurminder Singh, appearing with Additional Advocate-General Chanchal Singla, termed the responses filed by the Centre, Haryana and BBMB as “misleading and far from the truth”.

The Centre was represented by Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain and senior panel counsel Dheeraj Jain. Advocate-General Pravindra Singh Chauhan and Additional AG Deepak Balyan appeared for Haryana.

Advertisement

The BBMB, in its affidavit, said Punjab’s application lacked merit and came too late. “In case there was any infirmity in the May 6 judgment, the application should have been filed immediately after the judgment and not after directions were issued for compliance,” it said.

The BBMB said even if the court’s direction regarding water release was recalled, the main order restraining Punjab officials from interfering in the dam operations still stood, as do contempt proceedings. The Centre, in its response through the Ministry of Power, said the BBMB had already taken a majority decision on April 30 to release water to Haryana in accordance with the BBMB rules of 1974, “no further action is warranted by the Centre under Rule 7”.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement