The State of Punjab has withdrawn its habeas corpus petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court over the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) search at the headquarters of the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) after the search ended and the officers it alleged were illegally confined on the premises were set free.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth, "Faced with the changed situation/circumstances and happening of subsequent events as the search is also over and the alleged detenues have already been set free, Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, learned senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ferry Sofat, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, seeks withdrawal of the present petition, however, he prays for grant of liberty to avail the remedy by raising all the issues before an appropriate forum, as per law."

The Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, with that liberty. It held that all relevant issues, including the State's locus standi as raised by the Additional Solicitor General, would remain open for adjudication "if ever so required". The State was directed to pay ₹55,000 as the fee of the Warrant Officer appointed in the case.

The withdrawal came hours after the Warrant Officer, appointed at a late-night hearing, reported that the officers had told him they were "not detained in the premises illegally" and had not been pressured to sign any paper or concede anything.

The State, acting through the Under Secretary of its Department of Home Affairs, alleged that the ED's Jalandhar Zonal Office had been conducting a search, survey and seizure at the GMADA headquarters at PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, Mohali, under Sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). It said the operation began around noon on 22.09.2026.

The State alleged that the officers including Vikas Garg, IAS, Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Punjab,  Sandeep Rishi, IAS, Chief Administrator, GMADA, Amarinder Singh Malhi and Rakesh Popli, Additional Chief Administrators, GMADA had been held in the ED's custody since then.

The State sought the immediate release of the officers and the appointment of a Warrant Officer. It also sought the quashing of the PMLA authorisations and the sealing of the premises, and the return of seized records and devices and further sought a declaration that Sections 16 and 17 of the PMLA give no power to seal the premises of a State department or statutory authority. I

It also sought criminal action under Section 62 of the PMLA against the ED officials involved, and compensation for violation of Article 21.

Late-Night Hearing

The Court took up the petition at about 10:42 PM on 23.09.2026 at its camp office, over a WhatsApp video call.

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary, for the State, submitted that the raid had continued overnight for two days and the officers had not been allowed to leave or go home. He said hundreds of CRPF personnel had been deployed to guard the premises. He argued that the action was arbitrary, would cause "abrasions to the democratic process", and violated the officers' rights under Article 21. He relied on Supreme Court orders in TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement and State of Tamil Nadu v. Directorate of Enforcement.

Warrant Officer's Report

The Warrant Officer entered the GMADA office at about 2:50 AM on 24.09.2026, accompanied by the Additional Advocate General, Punjab, and police officers. He met the officers in the rooms where they were sitting or sleeping, and spoke to the Chief Administrator separately.

According to the report, the officers said they were not illegally detained, had been allowed to speak to their families, and that family and friends were allowed to bring them food. The Principal Secretary said he had even been allowed to go home for about two hours. The officers also said female staff were allowed to leave by 6:00 to 6:30 PM.

The ED's Deputy Director and the Investigating Officer told the Warrant Officer that survey warrants had been served on seven officers and panchnamas had been drawn. Search warrants were served after that. They showed him the original survey and search authorisations dated 22.09.2026. The report says the details of the predicate offence against the seven GMADA officers are mentioned in each individual search warrant.

The ED officials said the officers were staying on the premises only because the ED's forensic team was copying and cloning data from their phones, computers and other devices in their presence. They said the officers had been told they could leave after authorising another officer to be present in their place, the report stated.

When the matter was taken up on 24.09.2026, the search was over and the officers had been set free. In view of this change in circumstances, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary sought to withdraw the petition, with liberty to raise all issues before an appropriate forum.

The Court allowed the withdrawal. It held that all relevant issues, including locus standi as raised by Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, would remain open "for its address and then adjudication, if ever so required." A separate sealed cover of documents from the ED was returned to its counsel unopened, as the Court found no need to open it.

Case Title: State of Punjab v. Union of India and Others

Counsel: Vikram Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, with Ferry Sofat, Additional AG, Punjab, and Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab, for the petitioner-State;

Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General, Zoheb Hossain, Senior Advocate (through VC), Dheeraj Jain, Senior Advocate, Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel Counsel, and Gaurav Saini, Assistant Legal Advisor, for the ED;

Himanshu Arora, Additional Standing Counsel, with Shashank Sharma, for the Chandigarh Administration