120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-13613-2026 (O&M)
```
Trident Limited
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another
... Respondents
Reserved on : 4th May, 2026
Pronounced on : 8th May, 2026
Uploaded on : 8th May, 2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: full judgment.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY
Argued by: Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate (arguing counsel) with
Mr. Viraj Gandhi and Mr. Adarsh K. Dubey, Advocates
for the petitioner.
Mr. Maninderjit S. Bedi, Advocate General Punjab
(arguing counsel) with
Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Sr. Dy. Advocate General Punjab
and Ms. Kavita Joshi, Advocate
for the respondent/State.
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate (arguing counsel) with
Mr. A.S. Chadha, Advocate for respondent No.2/PPCB.
SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
CM-7409-
In view of the averments made in the application, the same is
allowed, as prayed for, and the documents (Annexures P-11 to P-16) are
taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
CWP-13613-
```
1. This petition invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under
RATTAN PAL SINGH2026.05.08 12:34Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction restraining the
I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document
```
respondents from taking coercive steps against the petitioner Company
pursuant to the raid conducted on 30.04.2026 by a team of officers of
respondent No.2/Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB). It is submitted
that no prior notice was afforded to the petitioner before the said raid. A
further direction is sought to send the seized samples to a Central Testing
Laboratory outside the State of Punjab and not to any Laboratory within the
State of Punjab.
1.1 The principal ground taken for seeking the aforesaid relief is of
mala fides founded on the factual matrix that the Chairman Emeritus of the
petitioner Company, who was a Rajya Sabha member from Punjab
belonging to Aam Aadmi Party, switched his political allegiance by joining
Bhartiya Janta Party. It is, thus, contended that the entire raid conducted on
30.04.2026 is motivated by political vendetta rather than genuine
environmental concerns thereby vitiating the powers so exercised.
```
2. On 01.05.2026, when the matter was taken up for the first time,
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate entered appearance (virtually) on behalf
of respondent No.2/Board and assured this Court that no coercive steps
would be taken till Monday, the 4th of May, 2026.
2.1 This Court listed the matter on 04.05.2026, when it was heard
and reserved for orders.
3. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.2/Board has
submitted a compilation of various decisions passed by the Apex Court as
well as this Court, along with the Punjab Water Prevention and Control of
Pollution Rules, 1977 (for short, ‘the Punjab Water Rules’) as well as the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short, ‘the Water
Act’).
RATTAN PAL SINGH2026.05.08 12:34I attest to the accuracy and
4. The first and foremost ground of objection of the respondent
No.2/Board is by relying upon the order dated 23.01.2026 rendered in
CWP-940-2026 titled ‘The Hind Samachar Limited & another vs. State
of Punjab & others’, where this Court had relegated the petitioner therein
to avail alternative remedy of approaching the National Green Tribunal
(NGT) u/s 33(B)(c) of the Water Act.
4.1 Learned senior counsel for respondent No.2/Board has further
relied upon rule 32(6) of the Punjab Water Rules, which provides thus:-
“Rule – 32 Directions. –
XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX
(6) Where the Board is of the opinion that in view of the
likelihood of a grave injury to the environment it is not
expedient to provide an opportunity to file objections
against the direction, it may for reasons to be recorded
in writing, issue direction without providing such
opportunity.”
By relying upon the aforesaid rule 32(6) of the Punjab Water
Rules, it is contended that where likelihood of a grave injury to the
environment is palpable, then the need to provide prior opportunity of being
heard can be waived.
4.2 Further reliance in this regard is placed on the provision of
emergent powers available to the Board u/s 32 of the Water Act 1974, under
which the Punjab Water Rules 1977 are framed.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is
not inclined to enter into the merits of the dispute raised herein.
5.1 However, an issue which deserves consideration is that of the
timing of the raid conducted on 30.04.2026 by a team of officers of
RATTAN PAL SINGH2026.05.08 12:34I attest to the accuracy and
```
respondent No.2/Board, which is in close proximity to the switching of
political allegiance by Sh. Rajinder Gupta (Chairman Emeritus of the
petitioner Company) from Aam Aadmi Party to Bhartiya Janta Party along
with six other members of Rajya Sabha on 24.04.2026.
5.2 By applying the wednesbury principle, the apprehension in the
mind of the petitioner Company that the raid conducted by respondent
No.2/Board on 30.04.2026 stems from political vendetta, appears
reasonably palpable.
5.3 As such, this Court is of the considered view that since
respondent No.2/Board has failed to show any emergent situation where any
stream, well, land or environment is being polluted by poisonous effluents,
it would be appropriate to allow respondent No.2/Board to take coercive
steps only after affording reasonable opportunity of 30 days to the petitioner
Company for rectifying any minor deficiencies.
5.4 The petitioner Company is at liberty to approach NGT u/s
33(B)(c) of the Water Act, in case any coercive steps are taken by
respondent No.2/Board u/s 33-A of Water Act.
```
6. With the aforesaid observations and liberty granted to the
petitioner, the petition stands disposed of.
(SHEEL NAGU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(SANJIV BERRY)
JUDGE
```
May 8, 2026
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
```
RATTAN PAL SINGH2026.05.08 12:34I attest to the accuracy and