‘Trident Group free to move NGT if coercive steps are initiated’: Punjab and Haryana High Court on PPCB row

Pronouncing the order, the Bench stated that since the respondent Board has failed to show any emergency situation where any stream, well, land, or environment is being polluted by poisonous effluents, it would be appropriate for the Board to take coercive measures only after affording the petitioner-company a reasonable opportunity of 30 days to cure any deficiencies.

The court further clarified that Trident would be at liberty to approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT) if any coercive action is initiated by the Board. The detailed order is yet to be released.

The matter arose from a petition filed by Trident Group challenging an inspection conducted by the PPCB at its industrial premises on April 30. The company had alleged that the inspection amounted to a “raid” motivated by political vendetta rather than genuine environmental concerns.

Earlier hearings

During earlier hearings, senior advocate Munisha Gandhi and advocate Viraj Gandhi, appearing for Trident Group, argued that regulatory scrutiny intensified immediately after the company’s founder and Rajya Sabha MP Rajinder Gupta resigned from the Aam Aadmi Party and joined the Bharatiya Janata Party along with six other Rajya Sabha members on April 24.

The company had contended that its various industrial divisions possessed valid environmental consents and approvals, and maintained that the PPCB’s sudden action raised serious apprehensions of mala fide intent. It was submitted that around 30 officials entered the premises on the evening of April 30, collected samples, and allegedly failed to adhere to the mandatory statutory procedure prescribed under environmental laws.

Trident had specifically alleged a violation of Section 21(3) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, claiming that samples were not divided into two parts or properly sealed in the presence of company representatives, thereby affecting their evidentiary sanctity.

The company had also stressed that while it did not dispute the Board’s authority to inspect industrial units, any coercive action, such as closure, power disconnection, or proceedings under Section 33A of the Water Act, without due process could cause irreparable damage to a listed company employing nearly 15,000 people.

Opposing the petition, senior advocate D S Patwalia, appearing for the PPCB, had argued that the Board’s visit was not a “raid” but a routine inspection undertaken under directions of the Central Pollution Control Board as part of regular monitoring of red-category industries.

The Board had submitted that nearly 450 such inspections had been conducted over the past six months and contended that no adverse order had yet been passed against Trident Group, rendering the petition premature.

The PPCB had further argued that the company possessed an alternative statutory remedy before the NGT in the event any adverse action was eventually taken.

While reserving its verdict on May 4, the high court had indicated that though the timing of the events might raise suspicion, the Board would still be required to act in accordance with law and due procedure.