Haryana not releasing Delhi's share of 1,050 cusecs of water through Munank canal, says Atishi
New Delhi, Jun 8: Haryana is not releasing to Delhi its share of 1,050 cusecs of water through the Munank canal, the city government's Water Minister Atishi alleged on Saturday.
Addressing a press conference, Atishi said during the summer, when Haryana releases 1,050 cusecs of water, Delhi receives about 995 cusecs.
"However, in the past one week, Delhi has been getting less water. It received 924 cusecs on June 1, 884 cusecs on June 4, 856 cusecs on June 6, and 840 cusecs on June 7. During every summer, there is a loss of around 59 to 60 cusecs of water due to evaporation. If 840 cusecs of water is reaching Delhi, it means Haryana is not releasing water in the Munak canal," she said.
The national capital has been grappling with a water shortage, with Atishi blaming Haryana for not releasing Yamuna water to the city.
The problem has become acute in some areas such as Chanakyapuri, where residents were seen climbing on top of a tanker with pipes to get their share of water.
The acute shortage has become an "existential problem" in Delhi, the Supreme Court observed on Thursday and directed the Himachal Pradesh government to release 137 cusecs of surplus water to the national capital and Haryana to facilitate its flow.
The top court also said there should be no politics over water.
Atishi said if water at the carrier-lined channel and the Delhi sub-branch -- two sub-branches of the Munank canal -- stay at this level, then all of Delhi will face a shortage in the coming two days.
On Friday, visiting Wazirabad barrage to take stock of the situation, she said the shortage would not be solved even if Himachal Pradesh released water as Haryana had "reduced" the city's share.
"Haryana is conspiring against the people of Delhi behind the back of the Supreme Court," she had alleged.
"The water level of the Yamuna at Wazirabad has come down from 671 feet on June 2 to 669.7 feet on Friday. If the water level falls so low, how will the water treatment plants supply water to the people of Delhi?" she had said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Involvement in criminal case no ground for demolition of property: Supreme Court
New Delhi, Sep 12: Alleged involvement in a crime is no ground to demolish properties, the Supreme Court said on Thursday and ordered a civic body in Gujarat to maintain status quo and not threaten to bulldoze the house of an accused in a criminal case.
Observing that such demolition threats are inconceivable in a country where the law is supreme, the court said it cannot be oblivious to such actions that may be seen as "running a bulldozer over the laws of the land".
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and S V N Bhatti said, "In a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally-constructed residence. Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for the demolition of a property."
"Moreover, the alleged crime has to be proved through due legal process in a court of law. The court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme. Otherwise, such actions may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land," it added.
The bench issued a notice to the Gujarat government and the civic body of Kathlal in Kheda district of the state on a plea of one Javedali M Saiyed seeking protection from the proposed demolition.
The court sought the response of the state and the civic body within four weeks.
"In the meantime, status quo in respect of the petitioner's property is to be maintained by all concerned," it ordered.
The petitioner's counsel said three generations of his client's family have been residing in the house for the last two decades.
He said an FIR was registered against one of the family members on September 1 and claimed that the municipal authorities have threatened to bulldoze the petitioner's family house.
The bench noted that the petitioner has referred to a complaint alleging house trespass addressed to the police authorities on September 6, in which the situation was described and it was said that law should take its own course against the person accused of crime.
The order of the bench further took note of the petitioner's contention that the civic body has no reason to either threaten or take any steps, such as using bulldozers, to demolish his legally-constructed and legally-occupied house.
The top court agreed to examine the case and listed it after a month.
