Punjab powercom property freeze extended; HC cites public interest over state development claims

Just about a week after the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered that none of the properties of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) would be alienated, a Division Bench today made it clear that the interim order would continue at least till March 13 –– the next date of hearing in the case.

The direction came amid the state’s insistence to vacate the stay after contending that the decision to transfer the property was development-oriented, based on a 30-year-old policy that was never challenged, and PSPCL had registered a Rs 6,215 crore profit –– submissions opposed by senior counsel Baltej Singh Sidhu on the PIL-petitioner’s behalf.

Appearing before the Bench, State Advocate-General Maninderjit Singh Bedi argued that they were not selling the property, but transferring it “for the purpose of development for residential commercial purpose. We want to develop the State”, he added.

Bedi further added the entire case was built “purely on the basis of a news-item” and insisted that there was no authenticated document on record to demonstrate that PSPCL was selling property solely because of non-recovery of dues.

“At least there should be authenticated document which projects that PSPCL is selling the property only because of the non-recovery of the dues — that is nothing on record.”

The court also took on record Bedi’s arguments that the subject matter could not be “successfully raised as a PIL” under the high court rules governing public interest litigation.

The Bench also took note of the State’s reliance relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court to contend that “the cause raised herein does not fall within the ambit of public interest”. Besides this, it was submitted on the State’s behalf that the decision to alienate the property fell within the domain of public policy and a policy decision could not be interdicted in PIL jurisdiction, the Bench observed.

Rejecting the preliminary objection on maintainability for the time being, Chief Justice Nagu observed the petition, among other things, had alleged that the outstanding dues were about Rs 2,582.24 crore payable by various Punjab government departments to PSPCL. As a result, the company was being compelled to alienate its immovable property “to ward off the financial crunch.”

Pointing at the rules governing PILs, the Bench observed they were not exhaustive in nature evident from the very terminology used.

“However, keeping the question of maintainability open, this Court is of the prima facie view that if the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is correct that the PSPCL is under a huge burden of 2,500 crore rupees and compelled to alienate the property, the issue definitely falls within the four corners of public interest.”

Referring to the preliminary objection, the Bench clarified that the question of maintainability would remain open for the State to argue at subsequent hearings and asked the State to file a detailed para-wise reply, while ordering that the interim protection against alienation of PSPCL properties would continue.

“File a para-wise reply and an application for vacating stay, along with documents that show PSPCL us healthy”, Chief Justice Nagu observed, adding that the balance-sheet referred to by the State, was not on record and supported by an affidavit.

The high court had, on a previous date of hearing, sought a response on the PIL alleging that its departments owed Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) electricity dues of Rs 2,582.24 crore as on the end of August 2025, apart from unpaid power subsidy exceeding Rs 10,000 crore.