Between 'vendetta' and 'regulation': High Court hears Trident-PPCB face-off, order awaited

Just about two days after Trident Limited moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court alleging procedural irregularities, apprehended closure action, and claims of selective targeting following a late-night inspection by the Punjab Pollution Control Board, the company on Monday sought a joint inspection by the Central Pollution Control Board.

Among other things, it alleged that the action was guided by political vendetta following a change in affiliation by its founder Rajinder Gupta — a claim strongly contested by the PPCB.

'What has changed in one month?' — Trident alleges vendetta, procedural breach

Appearing before the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry on Trident’s behalf, senior advocate Munisha Gandhi with counsel Viraj Gandhi submitted that the action was triggered not by environmental non-compliance, but by a change in the political allegiance

“What has happened in one month, other than the fact that the political allegiance has changed?” she asked, pointing to consents granted as recently as April 7 and April 13, and a history of inspections showing compliance.

She attacked the April 30 exercise as a coercive “raid” conducted at 7.30 pm by a 30-member team, alleging intimidation of staff and violation of mandatory safeguards under the Water Act.

Detailing the statutory procedure, she argued: “The person taking the sample shall serve a notice then and there, divide the sample into two parts each part shall be marked and sealed and signed… Not done. Neither sealed, nor in my presence, and I have not signed it,” she submitted

Seeking judicial protection, Gandhi pressed for a direction for joint inspection by the CPCB and PPCB, testing of samples by an independent laboratory outside Punjab, and a restraint on coercive action without prior notice and hearing.

She also invoked past proceedings before the National Green Tribunal to underline that the unit had been under continuous monitoring and had remained within prescribed norms in recent reports.

'Raid is a misnomer' — PPCB denies bias, calls plea premature

Appearing for PPCB, senior advocate D S Patwalia rejected allegations of vendetta as “a figment of imagination”, insisting the action was a routine inspection under statutory powers.

“This ‘raid’ is a misnomer. Only an inspection was carried out. Today, there is no adverse order against the petitioner,” he submitted.

He stressed that the Board was acting on directions for regular inspections of large industrial units and had conducted hundreds of such inspections in recent months.

On maintainability, Patwalia argued: “There is no order before the Bench. The writ is premature. The petitioner is beseeching this court to restrain an action which is yet to be taken.”

He further contended that statutory remedies existed under environmental law and could not be bypassed: “Even otherwise the remedy lies under the Act. The petitioner cannot dictate how a statutory authority should function.”

Bench flags timing, but questions pre-emptive intervention

The Bench, during the course of hearing, referred to surrounding circumstances, indicating that the timing of the inspection—coming soon after recent regulatory clearances—could give rise to an apprehension, even if that by itself was not determinative.

“The timing is such that it gives an apprehension in your mind, no doubt about that,” the Bench observed.

The Bench also indicated that regulatory action, if taken, must conform to law and due process, including adherence to statutory procedure and availability of remedies. After hearing the arguments, the Bench made clear its intent to pass order in the matter.