Delhi Jal Board v. Vijai Vardhan and Another

(L. Nageswara Rao, A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.)

Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 401-402 of 2021 In Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 111 of 1995

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 537 of 1992

Delhi Jal Board _____________________________________ Petitioner;

Vijai Vardhan and Another _____ Respondent(s)/Alleged Contemnor(s).

Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 401-402 of 2021; Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 111 of 1995; and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 537 of 1992, decided on July 23, 2021

The Order of the court was delivered by

Order

1. These Contempt Petitions have been filed by Delhi Jal Board against Respondents 1 & 2 for their wilful disobedience of the order dated 29.02.1996 in Contempt Petition Nos. 111 and 113 of 1995 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 537 of 1992 titled Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking v. State of Haryana¹ According to the Petitioner, the direction given by this Court in the said order to release sufficient water to keep the Wazirabad reservoir full has been violated by the Respondents.

2. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the Respondents have to maintain a flow of 450 (four hundred and fifty) cusecs into the Wazirabad pond. The maximum capacity of the Twin Mains, which is a pipeline that draws water from the Carrier Lined Channel (CLC), is 370 cusecs. At least 80 (eighty) cusecs of water has to be supplied through the River Yamuna, assuming that the Twin Mains are working at full capacity. Mr. Singh stated that there is a shortfall of 40 cusecs through the Twin Mains and there is no water being supplied through the River Yamuna. He stated that the State of Haryana has excess water available to meet its drinking water and agricultural/irrigation needs. The supply of drinking water has to be given preference. Upper Yamuna River Board (Board) did not respond favourably to the request made by the Delhi Jal Board for supply of water by the State of Haryana. Having no other alternative, Mr. Vikas Singh submitted that these Contempt Petitions are filed against the Respondents.

3. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, countered the submissions made on behalf of the Delhi Jal Board by stating that this Contempt Petition is an abuse of process of law. Having failed in several attempts to put pressure on the State of Haryana for supply of more water than what was allocated to the State of Delhi, the Petitioner has resorted to this Contempt Petition. He submitted that several changes have taken place after the order was passed by this Court on 29.2.1996 and the directions issued on that date are not applicable to the present-day situation. He asserted that the State of Haryana has been releasing water as per the agreement and directions issued by the Upper Yamuna River Board.

4. Due to shortage of drinking water for the residents in Delhi, Commodore S.D. Sinha filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the State of Haryana to maintain regular flow of water in Yamuna River. An interim order was passed on 31.03.1995 in the said petition which is as follows:

“After hearing the representatives of all the States concerned and the Union of India and their learned counsel, we are of the view that the Board having been legally constituted, the Memorandum of Understanding has become executable under law. The State of Delhi which is in dire need of water is to be given its allocation of water with immediate effect. We, therefore, direct all the parties to the Memorandum of Understanding to assure that sufficient water, which according to Mr. Mathur is about 2 ½ times of the seasonal allocation, is released from Tajewala Head so that Delhi gets 0.076 BCM [It is this quantity of water, Delhi has to get under the MoU, between March to June.] for its consumption during the period March to June 1995.

We issue special directions to the States of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh through their Chief Secretaries of the Irrigation Departments to release the water as directed by us for the consumption of Delhi from Tajewala Head with effect from 6-4-1995. While passing this order, we take this opportunity to request the respective Chief Ministers of the two States of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh to direct the officers/officials concerned of their respective Governments to have our directions regarding supply of water to Delhi, complied with.

We make it clear that this order is as an interim measure till the time the members of the Board and the Review Committee are appointed and they become functional. As soon as the Board becomes functional, it will be at liberty to pass any direction in the light of this order as they deem fit and in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding in the interest of all the States which are signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding.”

5. Two contempt petitions were filed, one by Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking and the other by Commodore Sinha for wilful violation of the order dated 31.03.1995. In view of the assurance given by the Advocate General for the State of Haryana that Delhi would get sufficient water, the Contempt Petitions were disposed of by giving the following directions:—

“10. So far as water supply from River Yamuna to Delhi is concerned, we order and direct that Delhi shall continue to get as much water for domestic use from Haryana through River Yamuna which can be consumed and filled in the two water reservoirs and treatment plants at Wazirabad and Hyderpur. Both the Wazirabad and Hyderpur reservoirs shall remain full to their capacity from the water supplied by Haryana through River Yamuna. We direct the State of Haryana through all its officers who are party to these proceedings and who have filed affidavits before us not to obstruct the supply of water to Delhi as directed by us at any time. This order of ours is not dependent on the MoU mentioned above or any other proceedings which may be initiated under any other law between the parties.

11. We, therefore, close the proceeding by requiring Haryana to make available the aforesaid quantity of water to Delhi throughout the year. Let it be made clear that any violation of this direction would be viewed seriously and the guilty persons would be dealt with appropriately. This order of ours would bind, not only the parties to this proceeding, but also the Upper Yamuna River Board.”

6. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between Chief Ministers for five basin States on 12.05.1994 (with Uttarakhand joining in 2003), the allocation of Yamuna water amongst the co-basin states of Upper Yamuna Basin is done by the Board under Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Union Ministry of Jal Shakti. According to the MoU, during a year when the availability of water is less than the assessed quantity, the drinking water allocation of Delhi has to be met first and the balance has to be distributed amongst Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh in proportion to their allocations.

7. In the time that has lapsed since the order dated 29.02.1996 passed by this Court, three additional water treatment plants (Bawana – 40 cusec, Dwarka – 80 cusec and Okhla 40 – cusec), and Carrier Lined Channel (CLC) from Munak head-works to Haiderpur Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and Twin Pipelines (370 cusecs capacity) from Haiderpur WTP to Wazirabad reservoir have been commissioned, with change in route of transfer of water to Delhi by Carrier Lined Channel – Twin Pipeline instead of earlier route through River Yamuna. After commissioning of the CLC – Twin Pipelines, Delhi Jal Board is drawing water for the Wazirabad and Chandrawal WTPs before the water falls into the Wazirabad pond, affecting the net quantity of water flowing into the Wazirabad pond. The Petitioner filed I.A. 43621 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 537 of 1992 for a direction to the State of Haryana to supply 450 cusecs of potable water at Wazirabad reservoir. On 11.05.2018, this Court directed the Upper Yamuna River Board to consider the request of the Petitioner for supply of water before 14.05.2018. The Board convened a meeting on 14.05.2018, in which it was concluded that the State of Haryana has been releasing 1050 cusecs of water from Munak through CLC and Delhi Sub-Branch against their share of 719 cusecs from Munak, thus providing Yamuna water to Delhi as per the Upper Yamuna River Board allocations existing on that date. It was observed in the said meeting by the Board that there was no violation of the order passed by this Court on 29.02.1996 on the part of State of Haryana in so far as supply of water towards Delhi’s drinking water requirements for Haiderpur, Chandrawal and Wazirabad WTPs are concerned.

8. Later, the Petitioner withdrew I.A. 43621 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 537 of 1992. The Petitioner subsequently filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8 of 2021 seeking a direction to the State of Haryana to ensure cessation of discharge of pollutants that increase concentration of Ammonia into Yamuna River. An interim direction was sought in the said writ petition to the State of Haryana to supply sufficient water to maintain the level of Wazirabad Barrage at 674.50 feet in terms of the order dated 29.02.1996. On 19.04.2021, this Court appointed a Committee at the behest of the Petitioner to conduct a local inspection and submit a report to the Court as to whether the Haryana and Delhi Governments have been complying with the recommendations made by the Central Monitoring Committee. The Committee submitted a report on 22.04.2021 in which it was stated that the State of Haryana was releasing more than 1050 cusecs of water as per the Board allocation. Referring to the developments post the order of this Court dated 29.02.1996, the Committee was of the opinion that para 10 of the said order had to be interpreted taking into account these developments. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court on 07.05.2021 after perusing the report of the Committee constituted by this Court. The Petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Board to seek allocation of more water to meet the exigency of shortage of drinking water in Delhi.

9. A representation was preferred by the Petitioner to the Board on 08.05.2021 which was considered in its 60^th meeting held on 13.05.2021. The following decision was taken by the Board after a detailed consideration of the request made by the Petitioner.

“Based on foregoing discussions, following decisions were taken by the Board;

1. Issue of allocation of Yamuna water has been decided in 52^nd meeting of UYRB as in para 28 above and no further additional facts have been brought to notice of UYRB since the meeting which necessitates relook into the decision taken in the 52^nd meeting of UYRB held on 14.05.2018. Haryana confirmed during the meeting that water supply to Delhi is being made during current month also as per Delhi’s share in accordance to decisions taken in 52^nd meeting of UYRB.

2. Delhi will review and explore the possibility of proportionate distribution of shortfall in water supply by optimally rationalizing the production at various WTPs. The saving in water so effected, after such a review and found practical for implementation, can be taken to Wazirabad reservoir through DD-8 for which necessary support and facilitation will be provided by Haryana.

3. The Board observed that Delhi has requested to meet immediate short term shortfall of water prior to onset of monsoon upto end of June’2021 to run its WTPs to their optimal capacity. Haryana side has pointed that the said request of Delhi is over and above the Delhi share and therefore, if Delhi Govt. requests for additional water over and above their share, same could be considered in the light of overall position. It was decided that Delhi Government may accordingly request the Govt. of Haryana to consider providing additional water through river route via DD-8 immediately and the same may be considered by Haryana on urgent basis. Any such request from Delhi shall not prejudice their water rights what-so-ever exists in their own interpretation.

4. Similarly, the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh may also consider the request of DJB made to Addl. Chief Secretary, Irrigation and Water Resources, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 13.05.2021 on urgent basis without prejudice to water rights and allocations.”

10. Complaining of acute shortage of drinking water supply in Delhi, the Petitioner has filed these Contempt Petitions seeking a direction for implementation of Para 10 of the order dated 29.02.1996. We referred to the historical background of the Contempt Petitions to highlight the ceaseless efforts made by the Petitioner for supply of more water. The order dated 29.02.1996 was passed by this Court for wilful disobedience of the interim order passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 537 of 1992 on 31.03.1995. It was clearly mentioned in the said order that it was an interim measure till the time the members of the Board and the Review Committee were appointed and they became functional. It was also mentioned in the said interim order that after the Board became functional, it had the liberty to pass any direction in the light of the interim order dated 31.03.1995 in accordance with the MoU in the interest of all the States which are signatories to the said MoU. As there was a violation of the said interim order for supply of water through River Yamuna to Delhi, this Court by an order dated 29.02.1996 directed the State of Haryana to supply sufficient water to fill the two water reservoirs and treatment plants at Wazirabad and Haiderpur. The Petitioner cannot resort to the said order to allege that the Respondents are in contempt in view of the large-scale infrastructural developments that have taken place since the order dated 29.02.1996. The decisions taken by the Board on 14.05.2018 and 15.05.2021 would make it clear that there was no failure on the part of the State of Haryana in releasing water in accordance with the MoU. The Petitioner has failed to make out any case for contempt against the Respondents. The Petitioner is cautioned to be careful in filing petitions repeatedly for a relief which has been rejected by this Court on earlier occasions.

11. The Contempt Petitions are dismissed.

CONMT. PET.(C) Nos. 401-402/2021 in CONMT. PET.(C) No. 111/1995 in W.P.(C) No. 537/1992

Delhi Jal Board ___________________________________ Petitioner

Vijai Vardhan & Anr ___________ Respondent(s)/Alleged Contemnor(s)

(FOR ADMISSION)

Date : 23-07-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

(Before L. Nageswara Rao, A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.)

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR

Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv.

Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv.

Mr. Bharat Gupta, Adv.

Ms. Tanvi Tuhina, Adv.

Mr. Misbahul Haque, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Purushaindra Kaurav, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, AAG/AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

12. The Contempt Petitions are dismissed in terms of non-reportable signed order.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CONMT. PET.(C) Nos. 401-402/2021 in CONMT. PET.(C) No. 111/1995 in W.P.(C) No. 537/1992

Delhi Jal Board.….Petitioner(s)

Vijai Vardhan & Anr.….Respondent(s)