Stay out of BBMB daily affairs, high court tells Punjab | Chandigarh News

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has restrained the Punjab govt or state police from interfering in the day-to-day functioning of the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), asking the state to approach the Centre in case of any grievance against the board’s decision.The court also directed the Punjab govt to abide by the decision of the meeting held on May 2 under the chairmanship of the Union home secretary, in which it was decided to release 4,500 cusecs of extra water by BBMB to Haryana for the next eight days to meet its urgent water requirement.It was also agreed that during the filling period of the dam, BBMB would provide this excess water to Punjab to fulfil their additional requirements.A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel passed these orders while disposing of three petitions filed by BBMB and others to remove the police force deployed at the Bhakra Nangal Dam and Lohand control room water regulation offices and for the release of 8,500 cusecs of water in the Bhakra Canal pursuant to the decision taken by the BBMB.Regarding the allegations of the deployment of force by Punjab to cause obstruction in the functioning and working of BBMB, the bench held that it cannot be appreciated. “The Punjab Police is always free to provide adequate security to the BBMB and its personnel but cannot interfere in the day-to-day functioning of the BBMB so as to obstruct the operation and management of the Bhakra Dam and water-related works,” the High Court held in its order released on Wednesday.On the suggestion given by Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, for the deployment of paramilitary forces for the safety and security of the Bhakra Dam as well as its water-related works, the bench observed, “We leave this question open for the members of BBMB to raise this issue before the central govt at the opportune time.”OBSERVATIONSThe law clearly provides for an alternative statutory remedy available to a dissenting state to represent to the Central govt for resolving the water dispute. The state of Punjab, in all fairness, ought to have represented before the central govt. No such representation was made by the state of PunjabKEY DIRECTIONS