The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenged the Punjab Government’s decision to prepone the paddy sowing season. The court ruled that the petition had become infructuous as the crops were already sown and the concerned time period had passed.
“The matter no longer survives for consideration as the paddy transplantation has already taken place,”
— Punjab & Haryana High Court
Read Also:- Patna High Court: Former MLA Must Pay ₹20.98 Lakh for Illegal Stay in Govt Quarter
The PIL was heard by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel. It was filed by seven residents of Punjab, who argued that the state government’s notification for early transplantation violated both established farming practices and legal provisions under the Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act, 2009.
As per the petitioners, Section 3(3) of the Act limits exceptions to the paddy sowing schedule only to government-designated research projects, water-logged areas, and officially notified alternative methods. The petitioners contended that the government had made a large-scale exemption, allowing transplantation from 1st June in certain zones, which went against the Act's core objective — to align sowing with the monsoon and protect underground water.
Read Also:- "Leaking Exam Papers Is Worse Than Murder": Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Bail Plea Of Former PSC Chief
“The early sowing policy contradicts the law’s intent to preserve groundwater by syncing sowing with monsoon rains,”
— Petitioners’ submission
However, Advocate General (AG) of Punjab Maninderjit Singh Bedi, assisted by Additional Advocate General (Ad AG) Chanchal Singla, countered this claim. They informed the court that the petitioners had based their arguments on the wrong law — the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 2009 — instead of the applicable Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act, 2009.
The AG also clarified that the document used by the petitioners contained incorrect details about the sowing period and misrepresented the government’s official notification.
After reviewing the timeline and evidence, the court observed that the sowing season was already over. Therefore, no effective relief could be granted, and the matter was rendered purely academic.
“Since the transplantation period is over, the issue has lost practical significance,”
— Court Observation
Consequently, the court disposed of the PIL without making any further directions.
Advocate Harish Mehla appeared for the petitioners, while AG Punjab Maninderjit Singh Bedi and Ad AG Chanchal Singla represented the state government.
