DELHI JAL BOARD Vs. VIJAI VARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Contempt Petitions have been filed by Delhi Jal Board against Respondents 1 and 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 and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 572, 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.