Safiya Malik

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry disposed of a writ petition by newspaper proprietors challenging coercive measures taken by the Punjab Pollution Control Board, holding that their proper remedy lies before the National Green Tribunal. The petitioners complained that after publication of articles critical of the State government, multiple actions were initiated against the management, including pollution-control proceedings leading to closure directions and disconnection of electricity to a printing press and hotels run by the owners, along with other alleged police and regulatory steps. The Court upheld the objection on maintainability and relegated the petitioners to seek redress before the NGT, without entering into the merits of the allegations.

The writ petition was instituted by two petitioners invoking the writ and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of a notice and consequential disconnection order directing stoppage of electricity supply to the premises of a hotel operated by one of the petitioners. The impugned actions were taken by the State Pollution Control Board and allied authorities following an inspection conducted on 13 January 2026.

Also Read: Compensatory Allowances Must Be Included For Overtime Wage Calculation Under Section 59 Factories Act: Supreme Court

The inspection recorded multiple deficiencies relating to wastewater management, operation of sewage and effluent treatment plants, hazardous waste handling, groundwater abstraction, and other environmental compliance requirements. Based on these findings, the Board invoked emergent powers under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, read with the applicable Rules, and ordered closure of operations and disconnection of electricity without issuing a prior show-cause notice.

The petitioners contended that the action violated principles of natural justice, was non-speaking, and that the deficiencies could have been rectified if an opportunity of hearing had been granted. The respondents raised preliminary objections on maintainability, asserting that the proper statutory remedy lay before the National Green Tribunal. The dispute before the Court was confined to the maintainability of the writ petition and the legality of invoking emergent powers under the Water Act.

The Court first addressed the scope of powers available to the Pollution Control Board under the Water Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It recorded that “from a bare perusal of the emergent powers under Section 32 read with Section 33A of the Water Act, and Rule 32(6) of the Punjab Water Rules, it is obvious that in an emergent situation to prevent further damage from being caused by effluents, the Board is empowered without affording prior hearing to close down the operation of any institution and disconnect electric supply, provided reasons are recorded.”

Referring to the inspection and subsequent action, the Court noted that “the Board constituted a team of officers who inspected the premises of the petitioner-hotel on 13.01.2026 and found the deficiencies in the requirement of compliance under the Water Act and Rules framed thereunder.” It further recorded that “thereafter, the Board applied its mind over the said deficiencies pointed out by the team of officers and found that emergent situation exists to invoke the emergent powers under Sections 32 & 33A of the Water Act.”

The argument that a prior opportunity would have enabled rectification was rejected, with the Court stating that “if opportunity was given in an emergent situation, then the very purpose of vesting the Board with emergent powers would stand defeated.”

On the requirement of supplying reasons, the Court observed that “the Statute, neither the Water Act nor the Punjab Water Rules oblige the Board to supply reasons so assigned for taking emergent action.” It clarified that “the only statutory requirement is that the reasons should be recorded in writing.”

The Court distinguished the precedents relied upon by the petitioners and recorded that “in the present case, sufficient reasons are contained in the letter dated 13.01.2026, which support the invocation of emergent powers.” It also noted that the dispute arose exclusively under the Water Act and therefore held that “the appropriate remedy before the petitioners is to approach the National Green Tribunal under Section 33B(c) of the Water Act.”

Also Read: Failure To Put DNA And Forensic Evidence To Accused Vitiates Trial: Punjab And Haryana High Court Quashes Conviction And Death Sentence, Orders Fresh Trial From Section 313 Stage

The Court clarified that “no order on merits has been passed and any assertion on merits is only meant for deciding the preliminary objections raised by the respondents. Consequently, the preliminary objections raised by the respondents are upheld.”

“The petition stands disposed of without commenting upon the merits, relegating the petitioners to avail alternative statutory remedy under Section 33B(c) of the Water Act.”

“In view of the order of the Apex Court passed on 20.01.2026 status-quo as directed by the Apex Court in regard to the commercial establishments including hotel, is continued for a period of one week from the date of pronouncement of this order.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate; Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate; Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate, with assisting Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Advocate General, Punjab, with assisting Advocates; Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, for the Pollution Control Board

Case Title: The Hind Samachar Limited & Another v. State of Punjab & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:009922-DB
Case Number: CWP-940-2026 (O&M)
Bench: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Sanjiv Berry