HC sets stage for fresh water row

Taking cognizance of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), a division bench said the water supply from the two projects was to be controlled by the BBMB according to Section 79 of the Punjab Re-Organisation Act, 1966. But this had not been done and the Punjab government was still controlling the head-works of the two projects through a sub-committee of the BBMB.

‘‘Punjab does not have any right to keep control of head-works and to flout the mandate of Section 79. It is only the BBMB that is entitled to keep administration and control of head-works in order to safeguard the fundamental right to water of the petitioner and other farmers of the state of Rajasthan,’’ the HC stated.

The decision is being seen as a major victory for Rajasthan, which gets its waters through the two projects at Ferozepur, Ropar and Harike for its Gang Canal, Bhakhra Canal and the Indira Gandhi Canal.

The petitioner had moved the court, arguing that Rajasthan never got its full share of water as the controls were in the hands of the Punjab government.

The Rajasthan government, which had hinted at legal action against Punjab, after a series of spats with its neighbour, has welcomed the decision.

Our discussions with the Centre on the issue had failed to yield results. But the HC has given us that relief, said Secretary for Irrigation SN Thanvi. ‘‘Giving the control to BBMB, a centrally governed body, will ensure regular supply of our assured quota,’’ said Thanvi.

According to the water-sharing agreement with Punjab, Rajasthan is entitled to 11,000 cusecs per day. In 2004, however, Punjab had passed a legislation unilaterally terminating the agreement with Rajasthan and Haryana. It had also challenged the PIL in the Rajasthan HC, invoking section 11 of the Inter-State River Dispute Act, 1956.

Questioning the maintainability of the PIL, Punjab had argued that the Rajasthan HC had no jurisdiction for hearing water disputes. The HC had, however, rejected the contention saying the PIL did not deal with any water dispute and as such it was maintainable.

‘‘Since the petitioner and other similarly situated farmers of Rajasthan have a fundamental right to water, this court has to address the issue from humanitarian point of view,’’ the court said.