HC questions legality of outsourcing core municipal functions in Sector 26 Mandi

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday questioned whether basic municipal functions such as sanitation and repair work could legally be outsourced by the Chandigarh Administration, while observing that such foundational duties were required to be performed by employees under direct administrative and disciplinary control.

Taking note of the affidavit filed by the UT Administration in the suo motu case arising from The Tribune’s report on unhygienic conditions and encroachments in Sector 26 Mandi, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu asked: “Can you outsource a basic municipal service? Is it there in the Act itself? There are certain very foundational municipal functions, which have to be performed by your own employees so that you have control over them.”

The Bench, which also included Justice Sanjiv Berry, was told by UT’s senior standing counsel Amit Jhanji that the responsibility for sanitation and supervision in the mandi had been entrusted to a sanitary inspector appointed through an outsourced agency. The Market Committee, he said, had issued several show-cause notices and warnings to the outsourced sanitary inspector between February and July 2025 for lapses in cleanliness.

However, when the Chief Justice questioned whether such critical functions could be delegated to outsourced staff, Jhanji conceded: “Your Lordship is correct… I have not gone through the rules. I can find out. If it is required to be filled up, we will do that also.”

Pointing to the photographs placed on record, the Chief Justice remarked that the images “don’t show any improvement,” adding that garbage was still littered around despite repeated undertakings. Jhanji submitted that the cleaning operation in the mandi began at 9 am and the photographs were taken a few minutes earlier.

The Chief Justice further observed that outsourcing created a situation where “employees functioning and performing municipal duties are not under the direct control and supervision, especially disciplinary control, of the marketing committee.” The court also noted that penalties had been imposed on the private contractor responsible for sanitation and repair works.

Seeking clarity on the legality of the outsourcing arrangement, the Bench directed the UT Administration and the Marketing Committee to apprise the court of the enabling provisions under the Act that allow outsourcing of essential municipal functions such as sanitation, cleanliness and repair work—functions described by the court as “foundational to the very existence of the marketing committee.”

The matter has been listed for further hearing after four weeks.