Serious concerns have emerged over the continued deployment of Price Control Magistrates in Punjab alongside the newly established Punjab Enforcement and Regulatory Authority, with field officers warning that overlapping roles, heavy workload, and security risks are undermining effective price control across the province.
The issue has gained traction following reports of disciplinary action against officials allegedly involved in fictitious inspection entries. While Price Control Magistrates agree that strict action against fake inspections is necessary, they argue that ground realities and the operational burden on field staff must also be factored in before assigning responsibility for performance gaps.
PERA was established with the goal of strengthening enforcement and regulatory mechanisms in Punjab, and a substantial amount of public money has gone into its infrastructure, manpower, and operations. Questions are now being raised, however, about whether its performance to date has matched the scale of investment, particularly given that the existing magistracy system continues to perform overlapping duties.
Redundancy at the Core
Field officers point to redundancy as one of the central problems. A Price Control Magistrate, speaking on condition of anonymity, said magistrates already carry their own departmental responsibilities, office work, and administrative assignments, yet are also required to conduct extensive daily market inspections and raids. In many districts, magistrates are expected to visit markets at very short intervals, sometimes multiple times a day, a frequency the officer described as practically difficult to sustain alongside primary duties.
The pressure extends to holidays as well, with magistrates required to remain available for inspections on Sundays and public holidays, including Eid, Muharram, and Independence Day. According to the officer, the emphasis on meeting numerical inspection targets sometimes makes meaningful enforcement difficult, creating a risk that officers resort to superficial or fictitious entries rather than substantive action.
Security remains another major concern. Magistrates frequently conduct inspections individually and without adequate police protection and can face resistance or confrontation during operations against profiteers, hoarders, and illegal LPG decanting. Officers say that if the government expects them to carry out raids, proper security arrangements and police support must be guaranteed.
Calls for a Transparent Review
Questions have also been raised about staff deployment within PERA, including personnel taken on deputation from other departments such as police. Field officers have called for a transparent assessment of the mandate, performance, and accountability of such staff, stressing that the goal is not to undermine PERA but to ensure public resources are used effectively and unnecessary duplication is avoided.
As a result of the added burden, many Price Control Magistrates are reportedly reluctant to continue with price-control duties, with some requesting to be relieved of the assignment so they can focus on their core departmental work.
Administrative experts believe the government needs to urgently review the enforcement model and provide clarity on several fronts: who bears primary responsibility for market inspections and raids, what PERA’s exact role should be, what remains with the magistracy, how overlapping duties will be avoided, how genuine inspections will be distinguished from numerical entries, what security will be provided to raiding officers, and how the added workload on magistrates will be compensated or adjusted.
Officials argue the objective should not simply be increasing the number of inspections but ensuring enforcement that is effective, genuine, and legally sustainable. With significant public resources already invested in the new authority, they say the government may need to evaluate PERA’s performance since launch and decide whether maintaining two parallel enforcement mechanisms is delivering results or whether Punjab would be better served by a single, clearly defined, adequately staffed, and properly secured system for price control and regulatory enforcement.
