IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 845 of 2006 Date of Decision: 15.12.2008 Baha Gian Dass Yuva Club ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr. B.S.Rana, Addl. A.G. Haryana for respondent No. 4. ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This petition has been filed in public interest. The grievance in the petition relates to reduced flow of water in 'Jagga Branch Minor' adversely affecting the irrigation of lands in Village Singhpura in Tehsil & District Sirsa of the State of Haryana. The petitioner's case is that the respondent-State of Punjab and the Department of Irrigation have constructed bed bars immediately before the Canal in question reaches the village mentioned above with a view to reduce the flow of water which reduced flow of water adversely affects the CWP No. 845 of 2006 [2] villagers living in Village Singhpura. The petitioner, in the above backdrop, prays for a mandamus directing the respondents to remove the bed bars to ensure uninterrupted water supply for irrigation and other purposes to the villagers of Singhpura. When this petition came up for hearing before us on 17.9.2008, we were of the view that the question whether the construction of bed bars was for any reason necessary or could be dispensed with to ensure adequate flow of water to Village Singhpura was technical in nature and could be decided only on the basis of the Experts opinion on the subject. We had accordingly constituted a committee of three Engineers, namely, (i) Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Branch, (Kotla Branch), Patiala Circle, Patiala, (ii) Executive Engineer, Irrigation Branch Jawahar-Ke- Division, District Mansa; and (iii) Executive Engineer, Rori Water Service Division, Sirsa, District Sirsa. The committee was directed to visit the site and report whether bed bars referred to by the petitioner were in any way affecting the flow of water to Singhpura. It was also directed to make recommendations as to the steps that could be taken to ensure the flow of adequate water to Village Singhpura. The Committee has in compliance with the above directions visited the spot, technically evaluated the nature of the problem and submitted a report, which may be extracted in extenso:- “ Report of technical committee constituted by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 17.9.2008 in CWP No. 845 of 2006 Baba Gyan Dass Yuva Club Village Singhpura versus State of Punjab and others. In compliance to above said order, the technical committee CWP No. 845 of 2006 [3] comprising:- (i) Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Branch, (Kotla Branch), Patiala Circle, Patiala, (ii) Executive Engineer, Irrigation Branch Jawahar-Ke- Division, District Mansa; (iii) Executive Engineer, Rori Water Service Division, Sirsa, District Sirsa. Visited Jagga Branch on dated 17.11.2001. The Canal was closed on that date.The Committee observed as under:- a) That 9 Nos bed bars of height varying between 1.25 feet to 1.50 feet and of length about 50 feet each have been constructed between R.D. 57236 to 73600 of Jagga Branch. b) That there was silt deposit of depth about 1.25 feet (average) in between all the bed bars. This excessive deposition of silt up to the height of bed bars was on account of less/dead velocity between the bed bars. c) That due to combined effect of bed bars and silt, there is hindrance in free flow of water. In view of above, the committee recommends as under:- That the bed bars were constructed to feed the near by outlets with their authorized discharge. But the problem of silt caused more hindrance to flow of water due to which water at tail is not adequate. The bed bars can be removed but the canal will have to the remodeled, by involving huge expenditure. As an alternate the committee recommends that a passage/Channel CWP No. 845 of 2006 [4] of the size 1 feet width and of height equal to bed bars be given through all the bed bars so that velocity of water increases and silt deposit is minimized to give proportionate water to all outlets including tail. The outlets can be redesigned if needed after feeding the tail (village Singhpura) adequately.” It is apparent from a reading of the above that existence of bed bars has in the opinion of the Expert Committee reduced the velocity of water and increased silt deposit thereby reducing the flow of water to village Singhpura. The case of the petitioner is, therefore, vindicated by the report made by the Committee. The Committee, however, has further reported that if the bed bars were to be removed, the Canal shall have to be remodeled which would involve a huge expenditure. It has as an alternate solution recommended that a passage/channel of the size 1 feet width and of height equal to bed bars be given through all the bed bars so that the velocity of water increases and silt deposit is minimized giving proportionate water to all the outlets including tail end. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we see no reason why the solution proposed by the Committee of Experts should not be directed to be implemented, especially when the only other solution appears to be expensive and may involve remodeling of the canal. We must mention to the credit of the learned counsel for the parties that they were not opposed to the idea of making changes as recommended by the Committee to ensure that the villagers of Singhpura get adequate quantity of water. In the circumstances, therefore, we allow this petition and direct that the respondents shall take appropriate steps to carry out the modification in the canal as suggested in the report submitted by the CWP No. 845 of 2006 [5] Committee extracted above. The needful shall be done by the respondents expeditiously but not later than four months from today. We reserve liberty to the petitioner to seek redress in case for any reason the solution provided in terms of the recommendations of the Committee also does not prove effective. No costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE 15.12.2008 'ravinder'