The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday stayed the operation of 17 show-cause notices issued to Trident Limited by Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB), while observing prima facie that the petitioner’s grievance regarding the nature and tenor of the notices, the fairness of procedure sought to be adopted, and its effect raised substantial questions requiring judicial scrutiny.
The division bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil and Justice Rupinderjit Chahal also ordered that “no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner” till the next date of hearing. The directions came on a writ petition filed by Trident Limited seeking quashing of 17 show-cause notices issued by PPCB, which the petitioner alleged were in violation of an earlier high court order dated May 8 passed in a civil writ petition.
At the onset, the bench was told on the petitioner’s behalf that the matter warranted interference even at the stage of show-cause notices. It was contended that the premises of the petitioner-company “was raided on April 30 for the obvious reasons” and thereafter multiple notices were issued under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
The bench was also told that the notices proposed refusal, cancellation and revocation of consents, environmental compensation and coercive directions.
Referring to the language used in the notices, the petitioner contended that the notices were mala fide inasmuch as they repeatedly recorded that the petitioner-company was guilty of “intentional and deliberate” violations even before consideration of its reply.
The bench recorded the contention that the notices “further state that the matter has already been considered and decided by the competent authority, leaving little scope for an effective consideration of the petitioner’s response to the notices issued”.
The petitioner further argued that once the authority had already formed a final opinion regarding liability and the proposed action, the grant of 30 days’ time for filing a reply, purportedly in compliance with the high court’s earlier directions, was “nothing more than an empty formality and a mere eyewash”.
The petitioners were represented by senior advocates Maninder Singh Munisha Gandhi and Amit Jhanji, along with Viraj Gandhi, Adarsh Kumar Dubey, Prabhas Bajaj and Salina Chalana.
Taking note of the submissions, the bench issued notice of motion to the state and other respondents after observing: “Prima facie, the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding the nature and tenor of the impugned notices, the fairness of procedure sought to be adopted for same as also the effect thereof vis-a-vis the directions issued by the division bench of this court, raises substantial questions requiring judicial scrutiny.”
During the hearing, Punjab Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi, assisted by DAG Satnam Preet Singh Chauhan, accepted notice on behalf of the state and sought time to file a status report/reply. At the same time, the state raised an objection regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that an “effective and efficacious remedy” was available before National Green Tribunal (NGT).
The bench, however, kept the issue open, observing: “The question of maintainability is left open for consideration.” The matter has been listed for hearing on July 10.
