Chandigarh, May 11 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has reiterated its May 6 order on the release of an additional 4,500 cusecs of water to Haryana and also sought names of officers from the Punjab government, who prevented the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) officers from releasing additional water from the Nangal Dam. The high court bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sumeet Goel underlined that it was conscious of the sensitive atmosphere prevailing in the state due to cross-border tensions between India and Pakistan and therefore, contempt notices are not being issued to the chief secretary and the director general of police (DGP). "Accordingly (the court) refrains from issuing contempt notice and merely directs them to submit their replies by identifying those police personnel who were involved in restraining the chairman and functionaries of BBMB in discharging their official duties to operate and manage the Bhakhra Nangal Dam and Lohand control room water regulation offices," the court said while giving Punjab two top officials two-week time for reply. The court posted the matter for further hearing on May 28. On May 6, acting on the plea from BBMB, the high court restrained the Punjab government from interfering in the board's work in Nangal Dam. The court had asked the BBMB to implement the May 2 order of the Union home ministry for releasing more water to Haryana. The court also said if Punjab did not agree with the Centre's decision to provide an additional 4,500 cusecs a day of water to Haryana, then it could approach the Centre. The BBMB, which was established by the Union power ministry in 1966 under section 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, regulates water distribution from the Bhakra, Nangal, Pong, and Ranjit Sagar dams. However, on May 8, BBMB chairman Manoj Tripathi during the proceedings of the contempt petition had told the court that BBMB officials were prevented from releasing water by Punjab Police. Tripathi had filed details of the incident reported on May 8 in an affidavit in which he elaborated on how the BBMB officials and Tripathi himself were prevented from releasing water. The contempt petition had been moved by a gram panchayat, Matana in Fatehabad district of Haryana seeking contempt proceedings and further directions that CISF/any other central force be deployed at the dam. The court said that from the reading of the affidavit of Tripathi, it was 'obvious' he along with his directors were "obstructed by the police personnel of Punjab in discharging their duties". "Thus, prima-facie it appears that the direction contained in. (May 6 order) was not complied with," the court said, adding that to ascertain whether disobedience of May 6 order was deliberate or not, the chief secretary and the DGP would file their respective replies identifying those police personnel who had obstructed the chairman and other functionaries in performing their day-to-day functioning. The court made it clear that for now the chief secretary as well as the DGP are not being made as party by name as "the real contemnors are yet to be identified". Hence, only replies are being sought with regard to disclosing the identities of "real contemnors". The officers, against whom contempt proceedings are initiated, are made a party in the case by their name and not by the position they hold. The controversy started on April 28 when Haryana demanded 4,500 cusecs of additional water from the Bhakra Dam, which was approved by BBMB. However, Punjab refused to accept the decision and deployed police at the Nangal Dam, 13km downstream from Bhakra, to stop the additional water release. Union home ministry directed on May 2 that additional water be released to Haryana, however, the decision could not be complied with as Punjab Police prevented BBMB officials from doing so, as per the BBMB plea in the HC. In the high court, BBMB had called Punjab Police's action "illegal and unconstitutional" and claimed that they were preventing officials from releasing additional water to Haryana. On the other hand, Punjab had claimed that it deployed additional security "in view of the recent terror attack in Pahalgam" while arguing that Haryana had already overdrawn its water quota and was "demanding irrigation water under the guise of drinking needs."...