E-Paper
Had Punjab allowed water to Haryana, flood situation would not have been that grave: BBMB to HC
Explaining the BBMB’s role and circumstances in which BBMB passed the decision, Garg said that the jurisdiction and power of the BBMB is that, according to seasonal conditions —monsoon, summer, etc. — water is regulated month-wise. But this does not alter the overall share position of the states.
The Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) on Wednesday told the Punjab and Haryana high court that the flood situation in Punjab would not have been “so grave” had the state released the additional water to Haryana in April-May.
The statement in this regard was made by senior advocate Rajesh Garg, appearing for BBMB, during the resumed hearing of a plea filed by the Punjab government, wherein it has challenged BBMB’s decision to allow release of 8,500 cusecs of water to Haryana in April-May. The BBMB established under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, regulates water distribution from Bhakra, Nangal, and Pong dams between Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Rajasthan.
Explaining the BBMB’s role and circumstances in which BBMB passed the decision, Garg said that the jurisdiction and power of the BBMB is that, according to seasonal conditions —monsoon, summer, etc. — water is regulated month-wise. But this does not alter the overall share position of the states.
“…had they released the water at that time, the reservoir water (level) would have (been low)… and the flood situation in the state would not have been that grave. They (Punjab) refused to release the water. The BBMB had no option but, in the monsoon, to release excess water downstream,” Garg added.
It was on April 23 and April 28, the BBMB decided to allow release of 8,500 cusecs of additional water to Haryana for a 15-20 days window, despite opposition from Punjab. The Punjab government refused to accept the decision and deployed police at Nangal dam, 13km downstream from Bhakra, to stop the additional water release. On May 6, the high court directed Punjab to release additional water, an order, which was unsuccessfully challenged up to the Supreme Court by the Punjab government. However, additional water was not allowed to be released and BBMB officials alleged that they were prevented from execution of orders by police. In August Punjab saw widespread floods inundating hundreds of villages, which resulted in large-scale damages to public as well as private property.
The petition in question was filed by Punjab on August 8, seeking quashing of the BBMB decision to allow 8,500 cusecs of additional water to Haryana. “The present writ petition has been filed by the state of Punjab challenging the jurisdictional overreach and arbitrary actions of the BBMB, particularly in relation to the illegal allocation of water from the Bhakra Nangal Dam to the state of Haryana beyond its agreed share,” the petition had stated.
The court asked the state’s advocate general, Maninderjeet Singh Bedi, as to why this petition has been filed when the controversy is over. Bedi in his submissions said that the instance could be used as precedent in future and that is why the state of Punjab is agitating. “Tomorrow, the BBMB might release additional water to some other state citing this precedent,” he responded by further saying that the BBMB had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Now, the court has asked the AG to produce rules, which bars BBMB from taking such a decision.
During the hearing, the court also asked the AG why the state government has not approached the Centre against the BBMB decision on allowing more water to Haryana. To this, the AG said that Haryana had petitioned the Centre on the issue and it was Haryana which was the aggrieved party. However, the court questioned the AG observing that Punjab was also the aggrieved party in view of the BBMB allowing additional water to Haryana. Hence, could have petitioned the Centre as per the applicable rules instead of filing this petition as remedy against the BBMB decision lied in approaching the Centre by an aggrieved party. Now, the hearing on the petition is adjourned to November 20.
