High Court seeks Haryana govt stand on DJB plea over supply of Yamuna water to Capital
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the Haryana government to respond to a plea by the Delhi Jal Board to ensure unhindered supply of Yamuna water to the national capital as per an earlier order in view of the impending summer.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was informed that in spite of an order passed by the high court in May 2019 directing removal of illegal bundhs or blockades from the river, images from last month clearly showed such structures blocking the water flow.
The application by the board was filed in a 2013 PIL by lawyer S B Tripathi seeking sufficient water supply for Delhi.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the board, said the present application was not for any increase in water allocation or any extra water but only sought implementation of the existing judicial directions on removal of blockades.
The court, during the course of the hearing, asked the Delhi Jal Board if the matter should be heard by the Supreme Court on account of it being an inter-state water dispute.
The senior lawyer, however, said the instant case was only a “policing matter” and did not require adjudication of any inter-state water dispute.
“There is an existing order. I am not asking for increased allocation or any extra water... This is only a follow up of that (earlier) order in light of the summer on our head,” Singhvi submitted.
The bench, also comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad, asked the Haryana government to file its response to the plea and listed the case for further hearing on May 10.
It also asked the Haryana government to respond to another application by the board seeking a direction to a court-appointed committee in the matter to file a fresh report with respect to the quality and flow of Yamuna water from Haryana to Delhi in terms of the earlier order
of 2019.
The counsel for the Haryana government said the high court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the state is complying with the directions passed in the case.
“Every year an IA (interlocutory application) is filed and the main petition is not heard,” he said.
