High Court Intervenes Again to Stop Fruit Market Construction Near Patiala Military Ammunition Depot
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has once again stepped in to halt the construction of a proposed fruit and vegetable market at Mehmadpur village in Patiala district. This decisive action came after the Union government, through the Ministry of Defence (MoD), filed a petition highlighting serious violations of defence safety regulations and potential risks to national security.
Court Issues Interim Stay Order Until April Hearing
A division bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji has ordered an interim stay on all construction activity at the controversial site. This order will remain in effect until the next hearing scheduled for April 22. The court's directive, originally issued on February 27 and uploaded this week, came while hearing a civil writ petition filed by the Union government.
The petition specifically sought directions to restrain the Punjab Mandi Board from erecting any structures within the restricted zone surrounding a military ammunition dump. The court noted the allegations of "patent illegality" raised by the petitioners and directed that no construction should continue on the land until the matter could be examined in greater detail.
Defence Ministry Cites Multiple Legal Violations and Safety Concerns
The Ministry of Defence, represented by counsel Satyapal Jain and others, presented compelling arguments against the construction project. Their petition contended that the Punjab Mandi Board's activities violated crucial provisions of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, as well as a specific 2006 notification that explicitly prohibits permanent construction within a 1,000-yard radius of the ammunition depot located near the proposed market site.
According to the defence ministry's submission, the land in question falls within an 810.81-acre area that was originally acquired for defence purposes back in 1976. Military authorities argued that the construction of boundary walls and plinths for the mandi project not only breached these statutory restrictions but also posed serious safety concerns for civilians due to the dangerous proximity to explosive storage facilities.
The petition further alleged that the construction could potentially obstruct strategic access routes regularly used by the Indian Army, thereby compromising operational efficiency and national security preparedness.
Long-Standing Dispute with Multiple Objections Ignored
This legal confrontation has been brewing for over a year, with multiple authorities raising objections that were apparently disregarded. In September 2023, the sub-divisional magistrate-cum-collector of Patiala issued a public notice reiterating the 1,000-yard restriction around the ammunition dump. Subsequently, in August 2024, the district town planner also refused approval for the project, specifically citing the provisions of the Works of Defence Act.
Despite these clear objections from competent authorities, the Punjab Mandi Board allegedly proceeded with the project in September 2025. The board even took the controversial step of advertising commercial plots for e-auction as part of the proposed market complex. In December 2025, the station headquarters in Patiala withdrew earlier joint verification communications and accused the board of misrepresenting facts regarding the true nature of the construction activities.
Previous Legal Challenges and Consolidated Hearing
This is not the first time the high court has intervened in this matter. Earlier, the court had already stayed construction at the site following a separate petition filed by the Mehmadpur gram panchayat. That petition challenged the transfer of village land to the Punjab Mandi Board.
The latest petition filed by the central government has now been tagged with this earlier plea, with the court set to hear both matters together in April. The Ministry of Defence has emphasized that permitting commercial development—including shops, infrastructure, and other facilities—within the restricted blast zone could compromise operational safety and national security, while simultaneously exposing civilians to potential danger from the nearby ammunition storage facilities.
The case represents a significant clash between developmental ambitions and national security imperatives, with the court now tasked with balancing these competing interests while ensuring strict adherence to established defence safety protocols.
