Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines to Interfere with Emergency Closure of Hotel by Pollution Control Board; Holds NGT Is Proper Forum Under Water Act
Case Name: The Hind Samachar Limited and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 23 January 2026
Citation: CWP-940-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Berry
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging the closure of a hotel and disconnection of electricity ordered by the Punjab Pollution Control Board, holding that where emergent powers are exercised under Sections 32 and 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the aggrieved party must avail the statutory appellate remedy before the National Green Tribunal under Section 33B. The Court held that prior hearing is not mandatory when emergent action is taken to prevent grave environmental injury, provided reasons are recorded in writing.
Summary: The petitioners challenged the notice dated 13.01.2026 and the consequential order dated 14.01.2026 issued by the Punjab Pollution Control Board, directing closure of a hotel at Jalandhar and disconnection of electricity supply, alleging violation of principles of natural justice. A further relief was sought seeking resumption of government advertisements to the petitioner-newspaper.
The Board invoked its emergent powers under Section 32 read with Section 33A of the Water Act, based on an inspection carried out on 13.01.2026, which revealed serious environmental violations. These included non-operation of the sewage treatment plant and effluent treatment plant, bypassing of untreated wastewater into municipal sewers, absence of authorisation under Hazardous Waste Management Rules, improper disposal of solid waste, unauthorised borewell usage, lack of approval from the Municipal Corporation, and failure to comply with consent conditions under the Water Act.
The petitioners argued that no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was granted, that the closure order was non-speaking, and that deficiencies could have been rectified had an opportunity been afforded. Reliance was placed on Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. to contend that writ jurisdiction was maintainable.
The Division Bench rejected these submissions, holding that Rule 32(6) of the Punjab Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1977 expressly permits dispensation of prior hearing in emergent situations where there is likelihood of grave environmental injury. The Court held that the statute only requires recording of reasons, not their prior communication. The reasons recorded by the Board in its internal note dated 13.01.2026 were found sufficient to justify invocation of emergency powers.
The Court distinguished the Sterlite judgment on the ground that the present case arose exclusively under the Water Act, without involvement of the Air Act. It further held that once statutory powers are exercised within the four corners of the Act, judicial review under Article 226 is limited, especially when an efficacious alternative remedy before the NGT is available.
The Court also took note of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court in Jagat Vijay Printers LLP v. State of Punjab, continuing status quo for one week to enable parties to approach the appropriate forum.
Decision: The writ petition was disposed of. The preliminary objection regarding maintainability was upheld. The petitioners were relegated to avail the statutory remedy before the National Green Tribunal under Section 33B(c) of the Water Act. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the closure action.