The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said the haste with which GMADA moved to demolish the farm stay of a PIL petitioner, soon after he filed the petition, cannot be brushed aside, as it handed the investigation of Enforcement Directorate material against senior officials to the CBI.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday flagged what it called “undue hot-haste” on the part of GMADA and other authorities in proceeding against the farm stay of Advocate Nikhil Saraf soon after he filed a public interest litigation, while directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate information shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) with Punjab Police [Nikhil Saraf v. State of Punjab & Ors.].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor pronounced the order on October 5, 2026, after reserving it on September 14. The allegations in the ED material are untested, no finding of guilt has been recorded against anyone, and every person named is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Background
The petition, filed on August 24, 2026 by Saraf, who appeared in person, sought directions for the registration of an FIR on the basis of a communication dated July 30, 2026 sent by the ED to the Director General of Police, Punjab, under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The ED communication, with 26 annexures, alleged that an intermediary had acted as a conduit between interested persons and an Officer on Special Duty in the Chief Minister’s office in matters including transfers, postings, policy decisions, tender conditions, arms licences and land transactions. These are allegations attributed to the ED; they have not been tested.
Saraf also contended that, soon after the petition was filed, the authorities began moving against his farm stay in Mohali. According to the order, GMADA had issued a show cause notice in November 2024, a Tourism Board notice followed on August 31, 2026, and GMADA issued a demolition notice on September 2, 2026. After the Bar Association moved the Court on September 4, the State undertook not to demolish till September 8.
ALSO READ: Punjab And Haryana HC Orders CBI Probe Into ED’s Allegations Against Punjab CM’s OSD
The State’s objections
The State of Punjab opposed the petition on several grounds. It contended that the petitioner was a stranger to the ED communication, that he had not disclosed two earlier PILs that were rejected, that he ran a farm-stay business and was facing proceedings from 2024, that the petition was premature, and that it was filed at political instigation to defame the State Government. It also submitted that a preliminary inquiry was justified because the documents were illegible and their chain of custody and compliance with Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 were uncertain.
The timing of the demolition
Rejecting the objections on credentials, the Bench held that the petitioner’s credentials had been sufficiently established and that the cause was of substantial public interest. On the farm stay, it observed:
“Undue hot-haste, on part of the respondents in proceeding against petitioner’s farm stay is nevertheless clearly evidenced. All this happened soon after filing of the present writ petition.”
“The undue hot-haste with which GMADA has proceeded against the petitioner, showing its intent to demolish his farm stay, cannot be brushed aside, either.”
The Court on Punjab Police’s handling
The Bench held that the information shared by the ED was “concerning to say the least” and, relying on Lalita Kumari and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, that registration of an FIR by the jurisdictional police is ordinarily to follow where information discloses a cognizable offence. Examining the chronology of steps taken by Punjab Police, it said:
“The above fact sheet clearly shows that the information shared by ED with Punjab Police has led to a journey with all travel and no reaching.”
“Asking for legible copies after about a month of extensive deliberation and issuance of notice to the persons referred to in ED’s communication renders the note furnished to us rather hollow and lends credence to the petitioner’s contention that time is being bought only to formulate strategies to save guilty and manipulate the available evidence.”
The Court also noted that the Officer on Special Duty named in the ED material had neither been associated with the preliminary inquiry nor been asked for a response, and held that the petitioner’s argument that the time taken was being used to distort evidence and shield senior officers was “not entirely sans merit”.
Directions
Holding that the information “prima facie conveys commissioning of cognizable offence in high public office” with the potential to endanger public interest, the Bench entrusted the investigation to the CBI, observing that it was not impressed by the manner in which Punjab Police had acted so far. The matter is listed on December 7 for a CBI status report.
Why The Punjab And Haryana High Court Demolition PIL Petitioner Order Matters
The order pairs two threads: the duty of police to act on information shared by the ED under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, and the Court’s attention to regulatory action taken against a PIL petitioner soon after he approached it. The Court did not record a finding on the allegations in the ED material, which the CBI is now to investigate, and the State’s contentions that the petition was politically motivated were considered and not accepted at this stage.
Case Title: Nikhil Saraf v. State of Punjab & Ors. | CWP-PIL-238-2026 (O&M)
Bench: Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor
Date of Order: October 5, 2026
For the Petitioner: Advocate Nikhil Saraf (in person); Bar Association: Rohit Sud, President, and Parampreet Singh Bajwa, Secretary. For the State of Punjab: Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, Additional Advocates General Chanchal K. Singla and Ferry Sofat. For the ED: Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain and Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain. For the CBI: Advocate Ravi Kamal Gupta.