Haryana has jumped into the ongoing legal dispute between Himachal Pradesh and Punjab over the British-era 110 MW Shanan Hydel Project by filing a petition in the Supreme Court. Haryana has requested to be made a party to the case.
Historical Context:
- The Shanan Hydel Project, established during British rule in 1925, was leased to Punjab for 99 years. It originally supplied electricity to undivided Punjab, including regions now in Pakistan, and later to parts of India like Delhi.
- Post-Partition, the transmission line serving Lahore was terminated in Amritsar, limiting its geographical electricity distribution.
Upgrades and Lease Terms:
- Over the years, Punjab upgraded the project from 48 MW to 110 MW to meet increasing electricity demands.
- Under the current lease agreement, Himachal Pradesh receives 500 kW of free electricity since the project uses water from its Uhl river.
Post-Reorganisation Allocation:
- After the reorganisation of Punjab in 1966, the Shanan Hydel Project was allocated to Punjab as Himachal Pradesh was still a Union Territory.
- A 1967 notification under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, granted Punjab legal control over the project.
Expiry of Lease and Current Dispute:
- With the lease expiring on March 2, 2024, Himachal Pradesh asserts that Punjab no longer has a valid claim over the project.
- Himachal Pradesh alleges poor maintenance by Punjab, citing neglect of essential repairs.
Haryana’s Intervention:
- Haryana has petitioned the Supreme Court to become a party in the dispute, indicating its interest in the project or its implications.
Constitutional Provisions:
- Article 131: Grants the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction in disputes between states or between states and the central government. Himachal Pradesh has argued that the dispute does not fall under Article 131 as it is based on a pre-Constitution agreement.
- Article 262: Bars the Supreme Court from adjudicating interstate river water disputes. Parliament has the authority to legislate on such disputes, indicating a different jurisdictional framework.
Key Points of Contention:
- Ownership Post-Lease: Himachal Pradesh asserts ownership after the lease’s expiry, while Punjab might argue historical control and development of the project.
- Maintenance Responsibilities: Himachal Pradesh’s claims of poor maintenance could impact the argument for reclaiming control.
- Constitutional Jurisdiction: Whether the case qualifies under Article 131 or falls under the scope of water disputes as per Article 262.
