Sukhna case: High Court says Centre ready to pay but Administration ‘kaam hi nahi karti hai’

While Chandigarh informed the court that a wetland authority and rules are already in place for preservation of the lake, Punjab reiterated its stand that the 2004 Survey of India map — which forms a basis for demarcation of the catchment area in which constructions are banned on orders of the High Court and even Supreme Court since 2011 — needs to be re-looked at after noticing the changes which have taken place over the years.

However, the court was quick to observe that primacy will have to be given to the judicial order and added that it is getting an impression that Punjab is siding with the “other party” (referring to those who have raised constructions in the catchment area in violation of the court orders). Punjab submitted that it had been objecting to the map right since 2012 but the question regarding it has never been decided, adding that the map had come into play in a case relating to Haryana and not Punjab.

“Saare kaam court kare…”

During hearing of the case regarding Sukhna Lake and catchment area constructions, the division bench headed by Justice Sharma ridiculed the Chandigarh Administration’s excessive reliance on court intervention in matters where otherwise the authorities should be taking action on their own.

“Saree kaam court kare … (Sector) 17 b…,” the court said, while referring to recent clearance of vendors at Sector 17 market, which was declared a no-vending zone long back but vendors were shifted from there in December only after the court set a deadline for it.

The Chandigarh Administration Thursday was grilled by the court for not responding to the queries raised by the Centre regarding a proposal sent by it in 2006 for de-siltation and other catchment area activities of Sukhna Lake. The project cost was estimated to be Rs 73.51 crore but the authorities never followed up on their own proposal.

UT senior standing counsel Pankaj Jain submitted before the court that the proposal was for wet dredging but later it was found to be not viable as experts said that size of the lake is too small for such a project. The court earlier asked why dredgers cannot be put to use in the lake like it is done for Nanintal lake and Ganga river.

Observing that the UT Administration was still required to give reply to the queries raised by the Centre with regard to its proposal, the court said, “Kaam hi nahi karti hai Administration. Wo paise dene ko tayar hai. We will give it to any other agency…” However, Jain responded that the wetland authority had been created now under chairmanship of the Administrator and it will take care of the issues.

Consider de-silting project, Centre told

In 2006, the Chandigarh Administration had given a proposal for project worth Rs 73.51 crore for works like de-siltation and catchment area treatment activities. The Centre in pursuance of the UT proposal had sought comments from two experts who called for implementation of the proposal within a period of six years. The Centre sought certain explanations and drawings from the administration but a reply was never received. The Administration was also advised to approach the IIT-Roorkee for further advice for conservation and management of the lake.

The court Thursday was told a committee of officers and experts from National Institute of Hydrology in 2017 had recommended that at least 10 hectare metres of desilting was required to be done every year on average at the lake but wet dredging was not recommended due to small size of the lake. The experts also had said the same would lead to loss of water and recommended dry dredging of the lake instead and its active de-weeding.

The division bench observed that nothing tangible seems to have been done to date regarding the proposal for de-silting and ordered the UT wetland authority to correspond with the ministry concerned within two weeks. The ministry has been directed to look into the matter expeditiously and consider sanctioning the financial assistance of Rs 73.51 crore or more in order to preserve the lake. The court observed that it is no expert but certain portion of the report/reasoning prepared by the committee defies logic, adding that the wet dredging can also be considered. It added the authorities can start dredging from a dry bed and do dredging by dividing the lake into blocks.