Punjab and Haryana High Court Halts PSPCL Land Sale in Major Ruling
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a significant interim stay order, effectively halting the transfer and proposed sale of prime properties belonging to the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). This judicial intervention puts a major roadblock in the Punjab government's ambitious asset monetisation initiative, which was specifically designed to alleviate the state's deepening fiscal stress and generate much-needed revenue.
Court Order Details and Legal Proceedings
A division bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor passed the interim order after hearing an urgent application moved by senior advocate Baltej Singh Sidhu. The application sought immediate judicial intervention against the state government's controversial move to transfer approximately 50 acres of valuable PSPCL land located in Badungar village, Patiala, to the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA).
This transfer was being executed under the Optimum Use of Vacant Government Land (OUVGL) scheme, with the ultimate intention of auctioning the prime property in the open market. The court has explicitly prohibited any transfer or sale of PSPCL properties until the next hearing, which is scheduled for February 26, 2025.
Broader Public Interest Litigation Context
The application formed an integral part of a broader Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Rajbir Singh. At the very heart of this legal dispute lies the Punjab government's strategic decision to liquidate utility-owned land parcels to generate immediate funds amidst a worsening fiscal crunch. The petitioner, Rajbir Singh, argued forcefully that the state government was essentially "selling the family silver" to bridge revenue shortfalls while simultaneously failing to settle its own substantial dues owed to the power utility.
According to detailed submissions in the PIL, PSPCL is currently grappling with severe liquidity strain, which has been significantly aggravated by nearly Rs 2,600 crore in unpaid electricity bills owed by various state government departments. The petition contended that under the Electricity Act of 2003, the government has a clear statutory obligation to clear these substantial arrears rather than resorting to monetising public assets that were originally earmarked for critical infrastructure development.
Power Sector Opposition and Employee Concerns
Power engineer unions have strongly supported this legal challenge, asserting that the land parcels in question were originally acquired for essential infrastructure purposes such as substations and grid expansion projects. They have argued consistently that divesting these strategic assets could seriously compromise future power planning initiatives and capacity augmentation efforts across Punjab.
Ajaypal Singh Atwal, general secretary of the influential PSEB Engineers Association, stated that selling utility land to raise revenue was completely unjustified when the government itself had massive pending subsidy payments and departmental dues. The court's stay order has been warmly welcomed by power sector employees and engineers, who have been protesting against the proposed transfers for several months through various demonstrations and representations.
Fiscal Implications and Government's Revenue Plans
The monetisation plan carried significant fiscal expectations for the cash-strapped Punjab government. Under the OUVGL framework, the state administration had projected raising approximately Rs 2,219.58 crore from six identified PSPCL sites across the region. These substantial proceeds were intended to provide temporary relief to a state treasury that is currently weighed down by an estimated debt burden nearing Rs 4 lakh crore, creating severe financial constraints for development projects and welfare schemes.
Political Reactions and Broader Implications
Leader of Opposition Partap Singh Bajwa described the court order as a crucial step in safeguarding Punjab's strategic public assets from what he termed as "indiscriminate disposal." He characterized this development as another significant legal setback to the state government's land-related initiatives, referencing earlier controversies surrounding land pooling policies and farmhouse regulations that had also faced judicial scrutiny.
This high court intervention raises fundamental questions about the appropriate methods for addressing fiscal crises in state governments, particularly when such measures involve the disposal of assets belonging to public sector utilities. The case highlights the ongoing tension between immediate revenue generation needs and long-term infrastructure planning requirements, with significant implications for power sector development and public asset management across Punjab.
