The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to examine on merits Punjab’s challenge to the Bhakra Beas Management Board’s (BBMB) decisions on water release to Haryana.
The bench held that the dispute mechanism required the state to approach the central government instead.
Dismissing Punjab’s petition seeking quashing of the BBMB Technical Committee meeting minutes dated April 23, 2025, consequential communications and resolutions, the bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry observed that the issue had already been dealt with in earlier litigation and had attained finality up to the Supreme Court.
The bench declined to reopen the controversy, while emphasising that the HC lacked the technical expertise required to adjudicate such disputes.
“This court is not equipped with technical expertise to go into the nitty-gritty of the issue of sharing of waters between two warring states and since statutory rules make available the avenue of making representation to the central government, it is safer and in the interest of both the states that the dissenting state should approach the central government,” the bench ruled.
Senior advocate Rajesh Garg, along with advocate Neha Matharoo, appeared for the. Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain, along with senior panel counsel Shalini Atri, represented the Union of India, while Haryana was represented by Additional Advocate-General Deepak Balyan.
Punjab had moved the court seeking quashing of the Technical Committee meeting minutes dated April 23, 2025, a consequential letter dated April 24, 2025, BBMB proceedings dated April 30, 2025, and draft minutes of the 255th special meeting of the Board held on May 3, 2025.
The high court noted that the court was earlier approached by the BBMB on a similar issue. Two other petitions were also filed in the public interest. All three petitions were decided by a common order on May 6, 2025.
The bench added BBMB decisions dated April 23, 2025, April 24, 2025, and April 30, 2025, assailed in the present petition, were referred to in the three earlier petitions. In one of the three petitions, a prayer was to direct BBMB to immediately release water –– 8500 Cusecs per day –– in compliance with its decision dated April 23, 2025
“Therefore, one of the impugned orders in the instant petition –– Minutes of Technical Committee Meeting dated April 23, 2025 –– was also subject matter of challenge in a PIL,” the bench observed.
Referring to the common order dated May 6, 2025, the bench added that it was directed that the state of Punjab could represent to the central government under the provisions of the Bhakra Beas Management Board Rules, if it dissented from the BBMB decision.
Rejecting Punjab’s contention that the high court could still re-examine the BBMB decisions because they allegedly suffered from “jurisdictional error,” the bench held: “We are unable to subscribe to the argument of the state of Punjab, for the simple reason that since 1974 Rules framed under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, statutorily provide that in case any decision of BBMB/Chairman of BBMB is disputed by any of the two states, then the remedy would lie by making a representation to the central government.”
The bench further ruled that Punjab could not seek re-agitation of the same controversy without any subsequent development or fresh cause of action having arisen. “In the absence of any further proceeding having taken place or any further cause of action having arisen, the state of Punjab is estopped from raising the same issue, which has already attained finality upto the apex court,” the court held.
Concluding that it would not enter into the merits of the dispute, the bench relegated Punjab to the alternative statutory remedy before the Centre.
“Consequent upon the discussion, this court declines to enter into the merits of the matter and relegates the state of Punjab to approach the central government by making an appropriate application,” the bench ordered, before dismissing the petition with liberty to move the Centre.
