Violation of natural justice principles and due process: Punjab and Haryana HC sets aside ₹2 crore penalty on Gurgaon developer BPTP

The interim order, passed on BPTP’s civil writ petition, set aside the HWRA order and the penalty. The court directed the HWRA to restart proceedings and conduct a physical inspection of the project site in Sector 102, Gurgaon, on September 11 at 11 am in the presence of the petitioner’s representative.

The court made it clear that if the petitioner’s representative fails to attend the inspection, no further opportunity will be given, and HWRA may proceed ex parte. After the inspection and receiving BPTP’s reply, the Authority must pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, preferably within 45 days.

The BPTP dispute

The case originates from an original application filed before the NGT by Paryavaran Vikash Sangh against four other developers for alleged groundwater violations in Gurgaon. BPTP was not initially a party to the proceedings. However, a joint committee constituted by NGT on July 26, 2023, with officials from the Gurgaon Collectorate, the State Pollution Control Board, and the Central Ground Water Authority, inspected nearby sites.

During a visit on September 20, 2023, the committee entered BPTP’s Amstoria residential plotted colony without prior notice, noted the presence of seven tube wells, and recorded that no-objection certificates (NOCs) could not be verified in the absence of company representatives.

This report, submitted on November 7, 2023, became the basis for NGT’s October 3, 2024, order authorising HWRA to seize illegal tube wells and impose penalties. Acting on this, HWRA issued a show-cause notice to BPTP on March 4, 2025, alleging extraction without valid NOCs under the Haryana Water Resources (Conservation, Regulation and Management) Authority Act, 2020.

Despite BPTP’s reply on April 4, 2025, denying ongoing de-watering and highlighting its non-involvement in the NGT case, HWRA passed an order on April 28, 2025, concluding “on conjectures” that de-watering continued. This led to a penalty of ₹2,11,95,216 on June 27, 2025.

Appearing for BPTP Ltd, Advocate Hermant Saini argued that the joint committee exceeded its mandate as NGT’s July 26, 2023, order was not “in rem” but limited to the four respondent developers. Saini argued that entering BPTP’s site without notice and including it in the report violated natural justice, especially since de-watering had occurred only for 25 days (September 4–29, 2023) during STP construction, which was later halted due to design changes.

Saini said that BPTP applied for approval for de-watering on November 9, 2023, submitted an impact assessment report on January 9, 2024, and sought conditional approval on June 17, 2025, but these were not considered.

The grievance deepened when NGT, on July 7, 2025, directed the applicant to implead BPTP as an additional respondent — after the penalty had already been imposed. This, the developer argued, gave “ex post facto legitimacy” to the illegal actions of the joint committee and HWRA, causing financial and reputational harm.

Saini cited the Supreme Court ruling in Grasim Industries Ltd vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), where penalties imposed without impleading the affected party and without notice were quashed for violating natural justice.

From the homepage

Kukis agree to free movement in big breakthrough for Centre, ahead of PM Manipur visit

GST rate changes: Why was this done, who is impacted how, explained in 5 points

Woman waiting at Bihar railway station abducted at gunpoint, gangraped