The State of Punjab has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the Union Ministry of External Affairs’ decision to deny political clearance “without assigning any reason” for the official visit of a delegation led by the Chief Minister to France from October 15 to 21 for promotion of trade.As the matter came up for hearing on Thursday before Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya’s Bench, Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain sought a “short accommodation” to get instructions and file affidavit “with an advance copy to counsel representing the petitioner”. The case will now come up for further hearing on Friday.In its 56-page civil writ petition against the Union of India and other respondents, the State has sought quashing of the decision denying political clearance for the visit of the Chief Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab and the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. Among other things, the petition has described the denial as “non-speaking, arbitrary, without authority of law and violative of the federal structure of the Constitution”.Giving details, the State insisted that the visit was proposed in connection with the participation of the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd (MARKFED), the State’s apex cooperative, in SIAL Paris 2026, an international food trade show scheduled to be held from October 17 to 21.The plea stated: “The stall of MARKFED has been allotted under the APEDA India Pavilion by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), which is a body under the Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry itself.”It was added that the State’s Department of Cooperation approached the Ministry of External Affairs for clearance through letters dated September 3 and 8, while the online application for political clearance was submitted on September 9, more than five weeks in advance.It further stated that “the Indian Mission in France had been consulted, administrative approval and cadre clearance had been granted, and the entire expenditure is to be borne by MARKFED”. Despite these steps, the petition alleged: “The application has simply been shown as ‘denied’ on the portal. No reason has been given and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner.”The State contended that the decision amounted to “unwarranted interference by the Central Government in matters falling within the executive power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution read with Entries 14, 24, 26, 27 and 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule”.The petition sought a writ of certiorari or another appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the decision denying political clearance, while seeking a direction to the respondents to “grant political clearance for the aforesaid visit forthwith” and to “produce the complete record relating to the decision taken on the aforesaid application”.Alternatively, the State sought a direction to grant political clearance during the pendency of the petition, subject to its final outcome. “Since the delegation is scheduled to leave on October 15, the matter requires urgent consideration,” it was added.