High Court Dismisses Punjab's Plea For Recalling Order Which Directed It To Abide By Centre's Decision To Give Extra Share Of Water To Haryana

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed an application filed by the Punjab Government to recall order passed on May 06, which paved the way for the release of Bhakra dam water to Haryana, by directing it to abide by the decision of the meeting held on May 02 conducted by Central Government's Home Secretary.

According to the Union Government's submission, on May 2, the Centre's Home Secretary at New Delhi convened a meeting and decided to release of extra 4500 cusec of water to Haryana in 8 days to meet the emergent needs of Haryana.

However, the Punjab Government objected to the same on various grounds  including that there was a material concealment on the part of BBMB (Bhakra Beas Management Board) by not producing certain documents on record.

In an order released on Saturday, a bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel opined that not disclosing that Haryana Government had written to BBMB for referring the matter to the Central Government for execution of the minutes of meeting of meeting held on April 28, is not a"material fact."

Not Disclosing That Haryana Government Wrote To BBMB For Referring Matter To Union, Is Not "Material Fact"

 Taking up the ground of non-disclosure of letter 29.04.2025, the Court noted that it is obvious from reading of the said letter that the extraordinary meeting of the BBMB dated 28.04.2025 was held to execute the resolution dated 23.04.2025 of the Technical Committee of BBMB.

"However, this letter dated 29.04.2025 clearly reveals that State of Haryana was aggrieved by non-execution of resolution of BBMB meeting dated 28.04.2025, especially regarding release of 8500 cusecs of water to Haryana. Contents of letter dated 29.04.2025 further elicit that stance taken therein was that the BBMB was being monopolised by Punjab," it added further.

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 the Central Government for implementation of earlier resolution.

Perusing the Rules, the Court noted 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.

"A similar power is given to each of the member States, who chooses to dissent from decision of the Chairman of the Board, to represent before the Central Government through the Chairman. Thereafter, the dispute shall be decided by the Central Government," it added.

The bench opined that the letter does not relate to any dissent by the State of Haryana, but contains request to the Chairman of BBMB to refer the matter to the Central Government for execution of the minutes of meeting dated 28.04.2025 of Technical Committee of the Board.

 "Thus, in essence, the letter dated 29.04.2025 does not raise any dispute or difference of opinion of State of Haryana, but merely seeks implementation of the resolution dated 28.04.2025 of Technical Committee of the Board. As such this letter dated 29.04.2025 of State of Haryana cannot be treated as a reference to the Central Government," it added.

Consequently, the letter dated 29.04.2025 of State of Haryana does not fall within the realm of “material fact”, non-disclosure of which is hence inconsequential.

As regards the ground of BBMB being incompetent to decide the issue once the matter was referred to Government of India after Haryana Government wrote the letter,  the Court said, "since this Court has held the letter dated 29.04.2025 not to be a reference to Government of India (as held supra), the question of reference being pending with Government of India does not arise and, thus, BBMB was free to act in accordance with law."

Matter Was Disposed Of Considering Emergent Needs Of Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi

Another contention raised by the Punjab Government was that since the cause shown by the Haryana, i.e. the ongoing repair of Western Jamuna Canal (WJC), became non-existent due to completion of the repair work, State of Haryana had no occasion muchless legitimate right to seek more water.

The bench said that it disposed of the matter in the backdrop of emergent situation, which 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. "With this urgency in mind, this Court finally disposed of the matter with certain directions vide order under modification dated 06.05.2025."

It further observed that, "As such, there was neither any occasion nor need to deal with elaborate contentions of the rival parties and, therefore, the said ground, which is being raised by the State of Punjab of the Western Jamuna Canal being under repairs, was never raised and thus was not decided by this Court."

The last ground raised by State of Punjab was that the record of discussions/minutes of meeting dated 02.05.2025 presided over by the Home Secretary, Government of India, was non-existent.

This ground has been raised in the backdrop of the contention that the Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of India, was not the competent authority to deal with a dispute referred by a dissenting member state under Explanation – II to Rule 7 of 1974 Rules.

"It may not be out of place to mention that since this Court has already held (supra) that the so called reference vide letter dated 29.04.2025 of State of Haryana was not a reference in terms of Explanation – II to Rule 7 of 1974 Rules, the very foundation for raising the said ground does not exist and thus, this ground is of no avail to the State of Punjab," the bench opined.

In the light of the above, the plea was disposed of.

Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. Nitish Bansal, Advocate, and

Mr. Jatinder Singh Gill, Advocate, for the applicant/respondent – State of Punjab.

Mr. Rajesh Garg, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Neha Matharoo, Advocate,

Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advocate, and Mr. R.K. Narwal, Advocate, for the non-applicant/petitioner Board.

Mr. Pravindra Singh Chauhan, Advocate General, Haryana, with' Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Panel Counsel, UOI

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

Click here to read/download the order