Amid plans to raise ₹15,000 crore by the Greater Mohali Development Authority (GMADA), the accountant general, Punjab, has told the high court that ₹6,400 crore deposited by the authority in the financial year 2025-26 with the state government treasury is a “serious accounting impropriety.”
Accountant general Kumar Abhay told the high court that the ₹6,400 crore deposited with the state treasury was liable to be kept by the state as a “dedicated fund” and its absorption in the consolidated fund to finance general budgetary deficits is an act of “serious accounting impropriety”.
“The amount spent by the state during the last 12 years for enhancing food security cannot be utilised to appropriate the deposit of ₹6,400 crore, which was exclusively required to be kept in the public accounts of the state as a dedicated fund,” the accountant general had said while countering the government’s claims that large sums were spent to enhance food security.
The submissions from the accountant general came before the bench of chief justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and justice Rohit Kapoor during the resumed hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) on September 15, raising issues of alleged grave financial impropriety by the state government in dealing with the GMADA funds and questioning the move to raise ₹15,000 crore to give a fresh infra push in some of Mohali’s newly carved-out sectors. The detailed order of the proceedings was released on Friday.
The accountant general had attended the hearing at the court’s request after the petitioner, on an earlier date, had referred to communication from him in June 2026 questioning the deposit of ₹6,400 crore by GMADA in the state treasury under the general revenue head.
{{/usCountry}}The accountant general had attended the hearing at the court’s request after the petitioner, on an earlier date, had referred to communication from him in June 2026 questioning the deposit of ₹6,400 crore by GMADA in the state treasury under the general revenue head.
{{/usCountry}}The PIL had claimed that such amount was required to be appropriated specifically for compliance under Section 10(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) and should have been kept separately. Section 10(3) of the RFCTLARR Act, which says that whenever multi-crop irrigated land is acquired under sub-section (2), an equivalent area of culturable wasteland shall be developed for agricultural purposes, or an amount equivalent to the value of the land acquired shall be deposited with the appropriate government for investment in agriculture for enhancing food security.
₹94k cr used in 12 yrs to enhance food security: Punjab to HC
The state’s advocate general, MS Bedi, had defended the state’s action as well as that of the GMADA and termed it in accordance with law. The state has invested ₹94,443 crores for enhancing food security in the state since the introduction of the 2013 Act, and therefore, the deposit of ₹6,400 crore into the consolidated fund to finance the general budgetary deficits suffers from “no impropriety”. It is not necessary to keep such an amount in the public accounts of the state as a dedicated fund, Bedi had asserted.
The high court, while deferring the hearing for September 28, has now asked the government to clarify whether the deposit of ₹6,400 crore by GMADA with the state treasury in furtherance of the provisions contained under Section 10(3) of the 2013 law could be absorbed into the consolidated fund to finance the general budgetary deficits when the deposit itself was specifically for a distinct purpose.
The court has also sought to clarify what is the total amount liable to be appropriated by GMADA in compliance with the 2013 law. “The affidavit will also justify huge borrowings made for the Aerotropolis project from time to time? Why a sum of ₹191 crore is proposed to be diverted to a private entity for securing such loan shall also be clarified,” the court has ordered.
The PIL had alleged that for the Aerotropolis project launched by GMADA, a loan of ₹2,000 crore was earlier availed but was not utilised, and now a further sum of ₹15,000 crore is being raised as a loan by GMADA. A sum of ₹191 crore is also being paid to a private entity for securing this loan through bonds, banks and other means, which the petitioner had claimed was not in the interest of GMADA or the state/public exchequer. “…large funds of GMADA are being diverted unauthorisedly to meet the general budgetary deficit of the state,” the PIL had alleged.