Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Wednesday, May 11, 2005 |
| New Delhi | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | New Delhi
J. Venkatesan
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a Rajasthan High Court order directing the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) and the Union Government to take over the administration, management and operation of the headworks located within the territory of Punjab. A three-Judge Bench comprising the Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Justice G.P. Mathur stayed the operation of the impugned order dated May 2 after hearing senior counsel, Harish Salve for Punjab and C.S. Vaidyanathan for Rajasthan. While Mr. Salve pleaded for stay of the judgment, Mr. Vaidyanathan opposed grant of stay. The Bench issued notice to the Centre, Rajasthan and the BBMB on the special leave petition against the High Court order and directed that the matter be listed in July. The High Court had on May 2 directed Punjab to hand over operations regarding Bhakhra Nangal and Beas projects to BBMB for regulating the supply of water to Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan. In its SLP, Punjab contended that the High Court had passed the order on a petition from a resident purporting to espouse the interests of the inhabitants of that State, which was not maintainable. Further even if the disputes raised in the petition were not water disputes, there were certainly disputes between the Centre and any State or States and that only the apex court could adjudicate on these issues. The right to the enforcement of an alleged statutory duty cast on the BBMB by virtue of the provisions of Section 79 (1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1996 was vested exclusively in Punjab and not on BBMB as held by the High Court. It must be noted that Section 79 (1) of the Act was not mandatory and had not been applied for the last four decades and therefore the enforcement of that provision was arbitrary and unreasonable. The SLP sought quashing of the impugned judgment and an interim stay of its operation.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2005, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
