Punjab & Haryana HC Renders PIL Challenging Postponement Of Paddy Season Infructuous, Notes That Crops Were Already Sown

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rendered infructuous a PIL challenging the Punjab Government's notification on the postponement of the paddy sowing season, as the crops had already been sown and the period in question had already passed.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel was hearing the PIL filed by seven residents of Punjab challenging the notification for preponing the dates of paddy transplantation allegedly in violation of established agricultural practice  and the Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act.

Referring to the Act, the plea submitted that as per Section 3(3) of the Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act,  exceptions to the notified transplantation schedule are limited only to designated research projects, water-logged areas, and alternative paddy cultivation methods expressly notitied by the Government. No such exemption is envisaged for large-scale preponement of dates contrary to the core policy of the Act.

It added that the current administrative decision to allow transplantation from 1st June for certain zones (instead of 20th June or later, as recommended by expert bodies) is a direct negation of the legislative scheme, which was designed to synchronise paddy sowing with the arrival of the monsoon thereby minimising the burden on already-depleted subsoil aquifers.

Opposing the plea AG Punjab Maninderjit Singh Bedi along with Ad AG Chanchal Singla submitted that, the petitioner had relied on the wrong statutory provision as he based his arguments on the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 2009. However, the correct statute under which the notification was issued is the Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act, 2009, specifically under Section 3 of that Act.

 He further added that the petitioner had relied upon a document—which contained incorrect information regarding the duration and time limits of the notification in question.

Upon examining the dates as shown by the AG, the Court found that the issue raised by the petitioner had already become infructuous, as the relevant time period had already passed.

Accordingly the plea was disposed of.

Harish Mehla advocate for the petitioner appeared for the petitioner

AG Punjab Maninderjit Singh Bedi along with Ad AG Chanchal Singla appeared for the Punjab Government.