Bhakra Nangal Dam | Decision To Allocate Extra Water To Haryana Not Taken By Competent Authority: Punjab Govt Tells High Court

The Punjab Government on Thursday (May 22) submitted before the High Court that the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) and the Centre concealed that no consensus could be reached with Haryana on allocation of extra water to the latter.

The Punjab Government was arguing its application before Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, seeking recall of Court's May 06 order, which paved way for release of 'extra water' from Bhakra Nangal Dam to Haryana.

A contempt plea was filed by a Gram Panchayat for non compliance of  Court's May 06 order.

Pertinent to note that On May 06, along with direction restraining the Punjab Police from "interfering" in the day-to-day functioning of the dam, the Court had also directed the Punjab Government "to abide by decision of the meeting held on 02.05.2025 under the Chairmanship of the Home Secretary to the Government of India."

Now the Punjab Government has moved the High Court seeking recalling of the direction to abide by decision of the decision of the meeting held on 02 May, which according to the Union Government was convened on the issue of allocation of water between the States.

Objecting to the stand of the Union Government, Senior Counsel Gurminder Singh and AG Maninderjit Singh Bedi with Ad AG Chanchal Singla appearing for the Punjab Government argued that the meeting convened on May 02 was on "law and order" issue and not on the allocation of water.

It was submitted that, "No consensus could be arrived between States of Punjab and Haryana on April 28 meeting wherein the issue regarding release of extra 4500 cusecs of water to Haryana from the share of the state of Punjab was discussed. The Haryana Government  being dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings, made a representation to Chairman, BBMB, through its Additional Chief Secretary, to refer the matter to Central Government under Rule 7 of Bhakra Beas Management Board Rules, 1974."

"In pursuance to the said representation, matter was referred to Centre Government by Chairman under Rule 7 of BBMB Rules. The BBMB thereafter, referred the matter to the competent authority being the Department of Power, Government of India for decision of the issue as per the 1974 Rules," added Singh.

Senior Counsel Singh referring to letters written by the Haryana's Chief Minister to the Union Government stated that, the fact that Haryana Government had made representation to the Centre to resolve the dispute on allocation of water was concealed which misled the Court to pass direction to abide by the decision of the meeting held on May 02.

The Punjab Government pressed that, the impression was given before the court by the Union Government that the meeting on May 02 was held on the issue of release of extra 4500 CS of water to Haryana, but, in fact there was there was no specific agenda for the meeting which was only in respect of the emergent issues with BBMB.

Furthermore, the meeting was not held as a consequence or, in relation to the reference by the BBMB or the representation made by the Haryana Government.

"Though it was informed, to the Court that a decision in regard to release of additional 4500 Cs of water to Haryana was decided in this meeting dated 02.05.2025, but it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the Union Home Secretary was not the appropriate competent authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate (on allocation of water) as per Rule 7 of the BBMB Rules 1974," the State Government added.

ASG Satya Pal Jain appearing for Union Government submitted that "we have come clear with the facts, there was no concealment...we will make our submissions."

The Court adjourned the matter stating that, "we will hear the other side tomorrow at 2:30 PM."

Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh along with Ad AG Chanchal Singla appeared for the Punjab Government.

Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General appeared for the Haryana Government.

Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India with appeared for respondent-Union of India.

Rajesh Garg, Senior Advocate with Ms. Neha Matharoo, Advocate appeared for the BBMB.

Title: Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Versus State of Punjab and others