Punjab and Haryana High Court Extends Stay on PSPCL Property Sale

Nearly a week after restraining the sale of assets belonging to Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that the interim stay will remain in force at least until March 13, the next date of hearing in the matter. The direction was issued by a division bench amid the state government’s plea seeking the removal of the stay. The government argued that the decision to transfer the property was development-oriented and based on a 30-year-old policy that had never been challenged. It also stated that PSPCL had recorded a profit of ₹6.215 crore. These arguments were strongly opposed by the petitioner’s counsel, Baltej Singh Sidhu. Appearing before the bench, Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi contended that the government was not selling the property but rather transferring it for “residential and commercial development purposes.” He emphasized that the move was aimed at promoting the state’s development. Bedi further argued that the case was based merely on a news report and asserted that there was no verified document on record to prove that PSPCL was selling its assets due to non-recovery of dues. The court also took on record Bedi’s submission that the issue could not be effectively raised under the rules governing Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The state cited various judgments of the Supreme Court of India to argue that the matter did not fall within the ambit of public interest and that decisions related to property transfer were policy matters beyond the scope of judicial interference in PIL jurisdiction. However, while rejecting preliminary objections on maintainability for now, Chief Justice Justice Nagu noted that the petition alleged that various departments of the Punjab government owed PSPCL approximately ₹2,582.24 crore. It was argued that the corporation was being compelled to sell its immovable assets to overcome financial stress. Referring to PIL principles, the bench observed that if the petitioner’s claim regarding PSPCL being under a financial burden of around ₹2,500 crore is correct, the issue would certainly fall within the scope of public interest. The court clarified that the question of maintainability would remain open for further arguments in subsequent hearings. It directed the state to file a detailed, paragraph-wise reply and ordered that interim protection against the sale of PSPCL assets would continue. Chief Justice Nagu also remarked that the state should submit a proper reply along with documents demonstrating PSPCL’s financial stability. He pointed out that the balance sheet referred to by the state was neither placed on record nor supported by an affidavit.