BBMB, Centre, Haryana told to file reply on Punjab plea

Just about two days after the state moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court for recalling or modifying the May 6 order in the “BBMB case”, a Division Bench on Wednesday called for a reply from the board, Haryana and the Centre.

“Let reply to this application preferred by Punjab be filed by the non-applicant/petitioner board as well as Haryana and the Union of India, before the date fixed,” said the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel. The court fixed the case for May 20, virtually advancing the date of hearing in the main case from May 28.

The state was seeking the modification of the May 6 order, vide which the Bench, among other things, had directed Punjab to abide by a decision taken in the matter during a meeting chaired by the Union Home Secretary.

Punjab, through senior advocate and former Advocate-General Gurminder Singh, had contended that the Union of India submitted before the Bench on a previous date of hearing that the meeting was convened on May 2 under the chairmanship of the Union Home Secretary on the release of extra 4,500 cusec water to Haryana. A press note in that regard was also placed on record.

The court, on May 6, was given the impression that the meeting was held on the issue of release of extra water, but there was no specific agenda. Taking up the matter, the court directed the state on that date to abide by the decision taken at the meeting held of May 2.

The direction, however, was passed as a result of completely erroneous, factually incorrect and legally unsustainable submissions by the BBMB, Haryana and Union of India, the petition said.

The correct facts came to light when the Union of India produced before the court a letter dated May 9, along with undated record of discussions of the May 2 meeting. It was apparent that the Union Home Secretary was not competent to decide the issue regarding allocation of water. The minutes were also not circulated among the states concerned before May 9.

“It is amply clear that the direction is based on non-disclosure of true facts by the parties concerned. It was causing undue harassment and irreparable loss to the state… Once it is admitted that the Home Secretary is not the competent authority to take a decision under the relevant rules, the state is not legally bound to comply with the direction,” the petition said.

Haryana Tribune