The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notice on a public interest litigation alleging that the Punjab Mandi Board floated fresh tenders for roads already constructed by another agency, raising concerns over possible duplication of public expenditure and loss to the state exchequer.A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor passed the order on a PIL filed by advocate Ranjit Singh Bath against the State of Punjab and others.“The petitioner claims to be a practising advocate, who has raised a grievance with regard to duplicate payments being released towards construction/repair of roads, which are already constructed by another agency. It is submitted that even on roads which have already been made by PWD, fresh tenders are being floated by the Punjab Mandi Board all over again, which would result in colossal loss of revenue to the State,” the Bench recorded in its order.The petition, filed through advocate Himanshu Malik concerns the transfer of 10 market committees from the PWD to the Punjab Mandi Board.  It was alleged that the Mandi Board floated tenders in July and awarded works in August, before the formal transfer of the committees.A sanction was issued on September 2, while the transfer order was issued on September 16/21. The petitioner questioned whether the Board had the requisite authority to initiate and award the works at the time.The PIL also questioned the process behind the transfer, alleging that the record did not show a fresh recommendation or adequate consultation with the PWD, despite an earlier Apex Committee arrangement for allocation of works between the departments.Citing road work in Qadian as a specific instance, the petitioner raised questions over a final payment voucher of about Rs 3.62 crore and sought reconciliation of the payment with the measurement book, completion certification, final bill and actual site position.It also referred to a PWD communication raising concerns that works or tenders in the same market committee area might have been taken up by both departments, creating the possibility of overlapping or duplicate road projects.Malik submitted that the sequence of tendering and transfer raised questions about the Mandi Board’s authority and the use of public funds.He sought an independent, time-bound inquiry and verification of tender, payment and site records to determine whether duplicate work had been carried out, wrongful payments made, or loss caused to the State exchequer.