The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought a detailed explanation from the Punjab Government over the handling of Rs 6,400 crore belonging to the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), after the Accountant-General flagged “an act of serious accounting impropriety”. The court specifically asked whether the amount, liable to kept as a dedicated fund, could be absorbed into the State’s Consolidated Fund for financing general budgetary deficits.The direction by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor came after Punjab Accountant-General Kumar Abhay reiterated before the Court that the Rs 6,400 crore was “liable to be kept by the State as a dedicated fund” and that its absorption into the Consolidated Fund to finance general budgetary deficits was “an act of serious accounting impropriety.”“The Accountant-General further submitted that amount spent by State during last 12 years for enhancing food security cannot be utilised to appropriate deposit of Rs 6,400 crores, which was exclusively required to be kept in the public accounts of the State as a dedicated fund. He also informed the court that though a communication is received from Punjab Government on July 31, in reply, but the issues raised by his office remains unexplained,” the Bench noted.The court was hearing a public interest petition filed against the State of Punjab and other respondents by Jaskirat Singh and other petitioners, “raising issues of grave financial impropriety on part of the State of Punjab in dealing with the GMADA funds.Among other things, the petitioners relied on a June 3 communication of the Accountant-General to contend that the Rs 6,400 crore deposited by GMADA with the State Treasury was being treated or appropriated under the general revenue head of the State, although the amount was required to be appropriated specifically for compliance with Section 10(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act.The provision, reproduced by the High Court in its order, provides that where multi-crop irrigated land is acquired under the circumstances specified in the provision, 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.”The PIL also raised questions regarding borrowings for the Aerotropolis project launched by GMADA. It said Rs 2,000 crore was earlier availed, but not utilised. Now, further Rs 15,000 crore loan was being raised for the project. “A sum of Rs 191 crores is also being paid to a private entity for securing loan of Rs 15,000 crores, which is not in the interest of GMADA or the State/public exchequer,” the Bench noted. The petitioners were represented in the matter by senior advocate Baltej Singh Sidhu, along with advocates Shehbaz Thind and Mohabat Sandhu.Appearing before the Bench, Punjab Advocate-General Maninderjit Singh Bedi, on the other hand, questioned PIL’s maintainability on the ground that it was not “bona fide”. Besides this, the action on part of the State and GMADA was strictly in accordance with law.He further submitted that the State had invested Rs 94,443 crores for enhancing food security in the State since the ACT’s in 2013. As such, appropriation of Rs 6,400 crores into Consolidated Fund to finance the general budgetary deficits suffered from no impropriety. He also submitted that it was unnecessary to keep such amount in the State’s public accounts as a dedicated fund.After hearing rival contentions, the Bench said it was of the view that it would be appropriate to call upon the respondents to file a specific affidavit, while leaving the question of maintainability open for examination.The Bench asked the respondents to specify whether the Rs 6,400 crore “could be absorbed into the Consolidated Fund to finance the general budgetary deficits” when the deposit itself was for the distinct purpose specified under Section 10(3).The respondents were also directed to clarify “what is the total amount liable to be appropriated under section 10(3) by GMADA.”The High Court also directed the respondents to “justify huge borrowings made for Aerotropolis project from time to time” and specifically explain why “a sum of Rs.191 Crores is proposed to be diverted to a private entity for securing such loan.”