104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.03.2026 Dalwinder Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Jatinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the applicant/petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Malhan, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Navdita Rathore, Advocate and Ms. Preet Agroa, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

CM-4286-CWP-2026 The present application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for preponement of the present writ petition to an earlier date.

In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed for the sake of disposal of the main case and the main case is taken up on board today itself.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for

quashing the order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure P-22) passed by respondent

No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.24697 of 2025 titled as Sandeep Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others along with bunch of petitions, decided on 09.02.2026 (Annexure A-1). On 07.09.2018, the following order was passed:-

“The four petitioners were appointed as Chowkidar/Sewadar/Class-IV vide order dated 30.06.2015 (Annexure P-17) by the Market Committee, Jhabal/respondent No.3 in pursuance to the Resolution dated 29.06.2015 (Annexure P-16), passed by the Market Committee.

The grievance of the petitioners is that at the instance of strangers, who filed an appeal against the Resolution dated 29.06.2015 (P-16), the Secretary of the Punjab Mandi Board, while exercising powers under Section 33 (4) (i) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, has proceeded to cancel the Resolution dated 29.06.2015 (P-16) recommending the appointments of the petitioners.

It is contended that neither was an appeal maintainable against the Resolution nor the Secretary has the jurisdiction to cancel the Resolution in exercise of the powers under Section 33 (4) (i) of the 1961 Act.

Notice of motion for 22.10.2018 On the asking of the Court, Mrs. Anu Chatrath Kapur, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State.

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3/Punjab Mandi Board.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to furnish requisite number of copies of the paper book to counsel for respondent No.1/State as also to respondent Nos.2 & 3/Punjab Mandi Board during the course of day.

Let the private respondent Nos.4 to 12 be served through dasti summons as well.

In the meanwhile, the operation of the impugned Appellate Order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure P-22) shall remain stayed.”

3. This Court in Sandeep Singh’s case (supra) formed a specific question that “Whether the Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board was competent to pass the impugned orders passed by Market Committees under Section 33 (4) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 in view of the delegation of powers by the State Government vide Memo dated 05.07.2002?” and the said question was answered by this Court in the following manner:-

“26. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that when the very proposal seeking delegation of powers was not in accordance with law, the approval accorded by the State Government thereto cannot be sustained. Consequently, the Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board, lacked the requisite competence to pass the impugned orders under Section 33(4) of the 1961 Act, nullifying the appointment of the petitioners, since the delegation itself is invalid in the eyes of law. It is, however, clarified that the re