'Approach NGT': P&H High Court Refuses To Interfere With State Action Against 'Punjab Kesari' Printing Press

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the proprietors of Punjab Kesari, other newspapers to approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for redressal of their grievance against coercive action taken by the Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB), including closure and disconnection of electricity to printing press and hotels of its owners.

It was alleged that after the newspaper published certain articles critical of the State dispensation, various coercive actions were initiated against the management, including cutting off the electricity, notices by the Pollution Control Board against the press, shutting down of the hotels run by the newspaper owners, FIRs, etc.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "this Court has no manner of doubt that the appropriate remedy before the petitioners is to approach the National Green Tribunal under Section 33B(c) of the Water Act."

The Supreme Court had on Tuesday directed the State not to take any coercive steps against the publications while the High Court judgment on their plea is awaited.

"In view of the order of the Apex Court passed on 20.01.2026, status-quo as directed by the Apex Court in regard to the commercial establishments including hotel, is continued for a period of one week from the date of pronouncement of this order," the High Court said today.

The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of notice dated 13.01.2026 issued by the PPCB directing disconnection of electricity supply to the hotel premises, and a consequential disconnection order dated 14.01.2026.

The petitioners also sought a direction to the Director of Information and Public Relations, Punjab, to resume issuance of government advertisements in favour of The Hind Samachar Limited, which had allegedly been stopped since 02.11.2025.

At the outset, the Court considered the preliminary objection raised by the Punjab Government represented by AG Maninderjit Singh Bedi regarding maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the impugned orders were passed by the PPCB in exercise of its powers under Sections 32 and 33A of the Water Act, invoking emergent powers. Therefore, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners was to approach the National Green Tribunal under Section 33B of the Water Act.

The emergent powers were exercised strictly in accordance with Rule 32(6) of the Punjab Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1977, read with the corresponding central rules. The petitioners had not even challenged the detailed reasons recorded by the Board for invoking emergent powers, he added.

The petitioners, on the other hand represented by Senior advocates Chetan Mittal, Akshay Bhan, Gaurav Chopra, inter alia argued that no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was granted prior to closure and disconnection. The order passed under Section 33A of the Water Act was non-speaking and reasons for closure were supplied only after the action was taken.

The Court noted that the case pertained exclusively to violations under the Water Act, arising from discharge of untreated effluents by a hotel having 72 rooms, banquet facilities, restaurants, a bar, and a swimming pool. A detailed inspection report revealed multiple serious violations, including, non-operation of the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP), bypassing untreated wastewater into municipal sewers, absence of hazardous waste authorization and improper handling of hazardous waste and solid waste, lack of approval for wastewater discharge from the Municipal Corporation etc.

Sections 32 and 33A of the Water Act, read with Rule 32(6) of the Punjab Water Rules, expressly empower the Board to take emergent action without prior hearing, provided reasons are recorded in writing, it added.

The bench found that the statute does not mandate prior communication of reasons to the affected party before exercising such emergent powers.

In emergent environmental situations, providing prior opportunity could defeat the very object of preventing imminent environmental harm, said the Court.

Upholding the preliminary objection, the High Court held that the petitioners must avail the statutory remedy before the National Green Tribunal under Section 33B(c) of the Water Act.

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate (Arguing Counsel) Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate (Arguing Counsel) Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate (Arguing Counsel) with Mr. Prateek Gupta, Ms. Shifali Goyal, Mr. Himanshu Bindal, Mr. Pranshu Goyal and Mr. Avichal Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Advocate General Punjab (Arguing Counsel) with Ms. Kavita Joshi and Mr. Sangam Garg, Advocates for the State of Punjab and PSPCL.

Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate (Arguing Counsel) with Mr. A.S.Chadha, Advocate for respondent-Punjab Pollution Control Board.

Title: The Hind Samachar Limited & another v. State of Punjab & others

Click here to read order