High Court Reserves Order in Media Group's Environmental Challenge
The Punjab and Haryana High Court reserved its order on Monday after hearing arguments in a significant case involving the Hind Samachar Group and the Punjab government. The media group challenged the Punjab Pollution Control Board's decision to disconnect electricity at its hotel in Jalandhar.
Media Group Alleges Procedural Violations
Senior Advocate Chetan Mittal, representing the Hind Samachar Group, presented detailed arguments before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry. Mittal contended that the Pollution Control Board acted with undue haste and violated statutory procedures.
He argued that the board disconnected electricity without issuing any show cause notice or granting a hearing opportunity. According to Mittal, this action breached the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act's requirements.
"The law mandates a minimum notice period and consideration of objections," Mittal told the court. "Even in emergency situations, the competent authority must record reasons in writing, which was not done here."
The senior advocate revealed that the initial order invoked only Section 33A of the Water Act, directing immediate disconnection. A subsequent order citing Section 32, which deals with emergency powers, was issued later to justify the action.
Mittal criticized this approach, stating that the later order merely reproduced statutory language without independent application of mind. He also questioned the officer's competence who passed the order under the board's delegation policy.
Rapid Action and Broader Context
The sequence of events unfolded rapidly according to the petitioner's account. The hotel was inspected, the order was passed, and electricity was disconnected within just two days. Laboratory analysis of effluent samples was not awaited, and explanations were not considered.
Mittal emphasized that more than 100 employees were affected by the disconnection. He maintained that any alleged deficiencies were curable and could have been rectified if a proper hearing had been granted.
Placing the issue in a broader context, the petitioner highlighted the Hind Samachar Group's history. The group has published newspapers since 1949 and suffered during Punjab's insurgency years, losing both the owner and his son to terrorism.
The media group alleged that the regulatory action followed the publication of news reports critical of the government. They claimed that in November 2025, attempts were made to stop newspaper circulation, and government advertisements were withdrawn. The January 13 action, they argued, was politically motivated.
Government's Counter-Arguments
Opposing the petitions, Punjab Advocate General M S Bedi presented the state's position clearly. "A press cannot use the excuse of journalism to commit environmental violations," he submitted. The government maintained that media houses cannot claim special treatment when facing environmental law violations.
Senior Advocate D S Patwalia, appearing for the Punjab Pollution Control Board, detailed the violations discovered during inspection. These included non-functioning sewage and effluent treatment plants, along with discharge of untreated wastewater.
Patwalia argued that these violations posed a real risk of environmental harm, justifying immediate action under Sections 32 and 33A of the Water Act. The board maintained that emergency powers were appropriately invoked given the serious nature of the violations.
Jurisdictional Questions Raised
Patwalia raised a preliminary objection regarding the petition's maintainability. He submitted that the petitions were not maintainable since an efficacious statutory remedy exists before the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
"Directions issued under Section 33A are appealable before the NGT," Patwalia argued. "The high court should not be approached as a forum of first instance in environmental matters."
During the hearing, Chief Justice Nagu repeatedly asked the petitioners why they had not approached the NGT. The bench observed that issues relating to environmental compliance, technical violations, and inspection findings fall squarely within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Responding to this, Mittal argued that the petitions raised fundamental issues of jurisdiction, competence, and violation of natural justice. These issues, he maintained, justified the high court's intervention despite the availability of the NGT route.
Court's Deliberation and Next Steps
The Division Bench heard detailed submissions from both sides before reserving its order. The court will now deliberate on several critical questions:
- Whether the Pollution Control Board followed proper procedures
- Whether emergency powers were appropriately invoked
- Whether the high court has jurisdiction given the availability of NGT remedy
- Whether natural justice principles were violated
The case highlights the tension between environmental enforcement and procedural safeguards. It also raises questions about media freedom and regulatory action timing.
Both parties presented extensive arguments spanning legal technicalities and broader principles. The court's eventual decision will have implications for environmental enforcement procedures and media-government relations in Punjab.
The reserved order means the court will announce its decision after considering all arguments and legal precedents. Legal observers are watching this case closely as it could set important precedents for similar environmental enforcement actions.
