JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sharma, J. - This common order shall dispose of all the aforesaid seven petitions since identical questions of facts and law are involved in the same.

2. A letter was sent by one Sh. Gautam Khanna drawing the attention of this Court towards the problems faced by the Sukhna Lake in Chandigarh. The Court took cognizance of the same and the notice was issued to the Chandigarh Administration,returnable for 21.12.2009 vide order dated 28.11.2009.

3. Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the cause espoused in this writ petition. The registry was directed to hand over one copy of the paper book to her within a peiod of seven days. Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate was directed to file formal writ petition incorporating all the pleas, which were sought to be raised during the course of arguments.

4. Learned Amicus Curiae filed formal writ petition. In the writ petition, there was averment to the letter dated 18.11.2009 written by one resident named Sh. Gautam Khanna, who had drawn the attention of this Court towards the problems of silt in the lake which has resulted in drying up of lake and reduction of its original size of about 2.5 kms in length to 1.5 kms. It was also highlighted in the letter that the Administration was spending money on frivolous construction around lake. There is further a reference to written note (P.1) wherein the brief description of Sukhna Lake has been given and the problem of siltation, loss of water space, the quality of water and problem of weeds and the Flood gates at the regulatory end in the Catchment area is discussed.

5. This Court on 05.08.2010, directed the respondents to file reply within four weeks. Sh. Sanjay Kaushal, learned counsel for UT apprised this Court that the desilting work was going on and 60 tippers, 04 Pocklanes and 04 JCBs were being employed for the said purpose. Vide order dated 26.04.2010, UT Administration was directed to make efforts to treat the desilting process on a very urgent basis. The State of Punjab was directed to be arrayed as party as the catchment area of Sukhna Lake falls in the State of Punjab.

6. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.05.2010, the State of Haryana, Punjab and UT Chandigarh through the Secretary Forest and Environment Departments were impleaded as party. Respondents were granted six weeks' time to file their respective replies.

7. Learned Amicus Curiae had also placed before this Court certain news clippings, which would suggest that in the catchment area under the jurisdiction of the State of Haryana, housing colonies were proposed to be built. Sh. Anil Rathee, learned Addl. A.G, Haryana had assured the Court of the commitment of State of Haryana to maintain the environment including the necessity of protecting the catchment area.

8. Learned counsel appearing for UT Administration, State of Punjab and Haryana were directed to identify a expert and authorized body or organization, which was engaged in such work i.e de-siltation of Sukhna Lake and would be in position to undertake the work.

9. In sequel to order dated 13.1.2011, the State of Haryana filed an affidavit dated 15.02.2011 through the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Morni Pinjore Forest Division, Pinjore to the effect that approximately 1055 Ha. of catchment area of the lake falls within the territory of Haryana. Neither any construction activity is going on, nor there is any existing plan for future in the catchment area of the lake. Court not being satisfied with the affidavit of the Deputy Conservator, Forests directed the Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana to file an affidavit explaining the stand of the State.

10. In sequel to the direction dated 22.02.2011, Sh. T.C Gupta, Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana filed an affidavit dated 04.03.2011 stating therein that the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana admin