Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab & Haryana High Court: While considering a petition seeking direction restraining the respondents from taking coercive steps against the petitioner-Company pursuant to the raid conducted, on 30 March 2026, by a team of officers of Respondent 2-Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB), the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ., and Sanjiv Berry, J., held that the timing of the raid conducted by PPCB, which was in close proximity to the switching of political allegiance of the Chairman Emeritus of the petitioner-Company from Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), stemmed from political vendetta and appeared reasonably palpable.
It was stated that no prior notice was afforded to the petitioner-Company before the said raid. Further direction was 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.
The Chairman Emeritus of the petitioner-Company, who was a Rajya Sabha member from Punjab belonging to AAP, switched his political allegiance by joining BJP, thus, it was contended that the entire raid conducted was motivated by political vendetta rather than genuine environmental concerns thereby vitiating the powers so exercised.
The Court stated that the timing of the raid conducted by a team of officers of PPCB which was in close proximity to the switching of political allegiance Chairman Emeritus of the petitioner-Company from AAP to BJP along with 6 other members of Rajya Sabha stemmed from political vendetta, appeared reasonably palpable by applying the Wednesbury principle.
Thus, the Court observed that since PPCB failed to show any emergent situation where any stream, well, land or environment was being polluted by poisonous effluents, and accordingly held that coercive steps could be taken only after granting the petitioner-Company a reasonable opportunity of 30 days to rectify any minor deficiencies.
The Court further stated that the petitioner-Company would be at liberty to approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT) under Section 33-B(c), Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Water Act) if any coercive steps were taken by PPCB under Section 33-A, Water Act.
Also read: NGT directs constitution of Special Task Force for monitoring and effective protection of Wetlands
[Trident Ltd. v. State of Punjab, CWP-13613-2026 (O&M), decided on 8-5-2026]
*Judgement authored by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate, Viraj Gandhi and Adarsh K. Dubey, Advocates
For the Respondent: Maninderjit S. Bedi, Advocate General Punjab, Salil Sabhlok, Sr. Dy. Advocate General Punjab, Kavita Joshi, Advocate, D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate and A.S. Chadha, Advocate