Delhi govt seeks SC nod to file fresh submission

Days after removing its lawyer, Delhi government on Monday told the Supreme Court that it did not subscribe to the views presented by him in the sensitive Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal case and wanted to file its submission afresh.

The AAP government told a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Justice A R Dave, that it wanted to withdraw written submission filed by the lawyer Suresh Tripathy.

Seeking permission to file fresh submissions, the newly- appointed counsel appearing for the Delhi government told the Bench that documents were filed without taking instructions from the authorities and the government does not agree with the contents of the documents.

The Apex Court then asked the Delhi government to file an affidavit stating the reasons for filing fresh submissions.

“You must file an affidavit. We will consider the written submission and pass appropriate directions,” the Bench said.

In his submission before the Apex Court, Tripathy had said that Delhi government is in favour of Haryana in the SYL canal case, even as Delhi Jal Board (DJB) said he did not have any permission from the concerned authority.

On April 8, DJB had removed counsel Suresh Tripathy from its panel for presenting “wrong” submission in SYL canal case in Supreme Court.

“It should be noted that DJB does not agree with the written submissions filed by the counsel in the Supreme Court... The DJB has accordingly decided to remove Suresh Tripathy, who was appointed by the previous Congress government, from its panel,” a DJB statement had said, adding it would approach apex court with the request to file fresh written submissions.

At the outset, senior advocate Harish Salve appearing for Punjab government said the Presidential Reference made at the instance of the Centre is not going to resolve the water- sharing dispute of SYL Canal.

He said the constitution of a fresh tribunal would help the case of Punjab in resolving all disputes with other states including Haryana.

Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, also appearing for Punjab, claimed the state was being “unfairly treated” and due share of water should be given to farmers for irrigation purposes.

Isolated by other stake-holders over SYL Canal, Punjab had said it was not bound to answer the Presidential Reference made at the instance of the Centre which had no power to resolve the dispute.

On April 4, the hearing had seen Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir siding with Haryana and the bench had asked Attorney General or Solicitor General to clarify the Centre’s stand clear on the reference pertaining to Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004.