CHANDIGARH, May 11 – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the state’s Chief Secretary and Director General of Police to identify the police officers involved in allegedly obstructing Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) officials from carrying out their duties, in violation of its earlier orders.
The court, responding to a plea by BBMB Chairman Manoj Tripathi, said its May 6 directive — which barred interference in the operations of Bhakra Nangal Dam and Lohand control room — remains binding as it has not been challenged.
“So long as the order dated May 6 stands and is not disturbed by any higher forum or by this court, its veracity and justifiability cannot be gone into,” the Bench observed.
In a notice issued Saturday, the Bench asked both top officials to file responses identifying the police personnel involved in restraining Tripathi and other BBMB functionaries from discharging official work. However, the court clarified it would not implead the Chief Secretary or DGP as respondents at this stage.
“We are not for the time being impleading the Chief Secretary as well as the Director General of Police, Government of Punjab, as party since the real contemnors are yet to be identified,” the Bench stated.
Tripathi, in a sworn affidavit, said police personnel had obstructed him and BBMB directors, indicating a prima facie case of non-compliance.
The High Court made clear that the central issue was contempt, not the legality of the May 2 meeting or its decisions.
The court had earlier directed Punjab and its agencies not to interfere in BBMB operations and to follow the outcome of a meeting chaired by the Union Home Secretary on May 2.
Senior advocate Gurminder Singh, representing Punjab, argued that the Union Home Secretary lacked authority to decide on the BBMB issue and claimed the meeting was mischaracterized in the court’s earlier proceedings.
“The impression given to the court was that a decision was taken to release 4,500 cusecs of water to Haryana — but that was not the case,” he said, insisting that the meeting focused only on law and order, not water distribution.
However, Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain maintained that water release was in fact discussed during that meeting, a point supported by a press note issued on the same day.
“The contention may or may not be true,” the court said, “but the fact remains that this court is looking at the issue from the limited scope available under the contempt jurisdiction.”
The matter is expected to proceed once the identities of the officials involved are submitted by the state’s top administrators.
