Water dispute: High Court dismisses Punjab's plea seeking recall or modification of May 6 order

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the Punjab government's plea seeking a recall or modification of its May 6 order which asked it to release water to Haryana.

On May 26, the high court had reserved its order on the Punjab government's plea.

Punjab had sought a recall or modification of its May 6 order pertaining to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan's May 2 decision to release 4,500 cusecs of extra water to Haryana.

The high court on May 6 directed Punjab to abide by the decision of the meeting held on May 2 under the chairmanship of the Union home secretary.

Punjab had alleged concealment of "material facts" by the Centre, Haryana and Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) which led to the May 6 high court order.

In the order that came out on Saturday, the division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed the Punjab government's plea.

Referring to the state of Punjab's assertion that disputes relating to water between two or more states emanate from Article 262 of the Constitution, pursuant to which Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, the court said, "Merely because this court held that Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 is a manifestation of Article 262 (1) of the Constitution, does not help the stance of State of Punjab in any manner in its attempt to seek re-calling/ modification of the order, unless the State of Punjab can show that because of this error, any prejudice has been caused to it, which is certainly not the case herein." The major thrust of Punjab's argument is as regards material concealment on the part of BBMB and Haryana by contending that the April 29 letter of Haryana, requesting the BBMB Chairman to refer the matter to the Centre was not brought to the notice of the court.

"Taking up the ground of non-disclosure of the letter, it is obvious from reading of the said letter that the extraordinary meeting of the BBMB dated April 28 was held to execute the resolution dated April 23 of the Technical Committee of BBMB. However, this letter clearly reveals that the state of Haryana was aggrieved by non-execution of resolution of BBMB, especially regarding release of 8500 cusecs of water to Haryana.

"Contents of letter April 29 further elicit that stance taken therein was that the BBMB was being monopolised by Punjab. Thus, the State of Haryana under Explanation - II to Rule 7 of 1974 Rules, requested the Chairman of the BBMB to refer the matter to Centre for implementation of earlier resolution," said the order.

A close scrutiny of Rule 7 of 1974 Rules, along with both the explanations, reveals that in case of difference of opinion among the members on any question of policy or the rights of any of the participating states, the chairman shall refer the matter to the central government, which shall decide the same, it said.

The court further stated that the April 29 letter does not relate to any dissent by Haryana but contains a request to the BBMB Chairman to refer the matter to the central government for the execution of the minutes of the April 28 meeting.

Thus, in essence, the letter dated April 29 does not raise any dispute or difference of opinion of Haryana but merely seeks implementation of the April 28 resolution of the Technical Committee of the Board. As such, this letter cannot be treated as a reference to the Centre, the court held.

Consequently, the April 29 letter of Haryana does not fall within the realm of "material fact", non-disclosure of which is hence inconsequential, it said.

Regarding the ground of BBMB being incompetent to decide the issue once the matter was referred to the government of India is concerned, the order said since this court has held the April 29 letter not to be a reference to the government of India, the question of reference being pending with the government of India does not arise and, thus, BBMB was free to act in accordance with law.

Referring to its May 6 order, the court mentioned that it disposed of the matter in the backdrop of an emergent situation that had arisen and any delay in resolving the dispute would have caused irreparable damage to millions of residents of different states, including Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi.

On May 20, Haryana, BBMB and the Centre had filed their replies to Punjab's plea which sought a review or modification of the high court's May 6 order.

Haryana had earlier submitted that the application filed by Punjab is "complete abuse of the process of the court with an ulterior motive to wriggle out from the proceedings of contempt." Punjab and Haryana had been at loggerheads over the distribution of water with the AAP government refusing to share water from Bhakra Dam, saying the neighbouring state has already utilised its share of water.