BBMB row: Punjab terms concealment of ‘facts’ by Centre, Haryana as ‘institutional bullying’

Alleging deliberate concealment of “material facts” both by Centre and Haryana, Punjab on Thursday said the Punjab and Haryana High Court was never informed of a statutory reference made by the Bhakra Beas Management Board chairman to the Central Government regarding the dispute over release of additional water.

Appearing before the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, senior advocate Gurminder Singh submitted on Punjab’s behalf that the reference was made to the Centre by the BBMB chairman at Haryana’s behest on April 29 following a difference of opinion between it and Punjab on the release of additional water.

He submitted that the BBMB after the making of reference to the Centre became “functus officio” –– a Latin term meaning “having performed his office”.

Gurminder Singh argued it was then for the Centre to decide the issue in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of the BBMB Rules, 1974. The Rule makes it clear that any disagreement involving policy or inter-state rights must be referred to the Centre for a binding decision.

He added that the BBMB chairman, despite making the reference to the Centre, presided over a meeting the next day on April 30 and “chose to conceal and remain silent”. He further submitted that the High Court was also kept in the dark about the actual developments that took place during a subsequent meeting convened by the Ministry of Power under the Home Secretary’s chairmanship.

“Nothing about this meeting was circulated to the parties concerned,” he submitted, adding that even the purpose of the meeting was misrepresented. It was not about release of additional water but related to law and order.

It was further submitted that neither the Union of India nor Haryana informed the court about the fact that a reference had already been made to the Central Government. Punjab argued that this concealment of facts was not accidental but deliberate, terming it a case of “institutional bullying.”

Asserting that such suppression had a bearing on the court’s proceedings, Punjab maintained that the Bench may not have passed the order it did had the facts been placed on record.

He added that the BBMB moved the high court in garb of an aggrieved seeking redressal of grievances regarding security. But the real intent was to seek “stamp of approval of an illegal act”.

Punjab’s submissions were met with stiff objections by the Centre. Appearing before the Bench, Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain and senior panel counsel Dheeraj Jain refuted allegations of misrepresentation or concealment of facts.

“Punjab is making attempts to pass time and get rid of the high court orders without following the requisite procedure,” he added.

The matter is now listed for further hearing on Friday, when Jain and other respondents will be heard.

Top News