Major Relief for Rajinder Gupta: HC restrains PPCB from coercive action against Trident without 30-day notice; says apprehension of political vendetta “Reasonably Palpable”
Babushahi Bureau
Chandigarh, May 8, 2026: Agreeing with the petitioner-company’s apprehension of political vendetta behind the action initiated by the Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB), the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday granted major relief to Trident Group and its Chairman Emeritus Rajinder Gupta by directing the Board not to take any coercive action against the company without first giving a 30-day notice and reasonable opportunity to rectify any deficiencies.
The directions came in connection with the PPCB raid conducted at Trident Limited’s Dhaula-based unit in Barnala on April 30.
In an important observation, the High Court noted:
“By applying the Wednesbury principle, the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner-company that the raid conducted by the respondent Board on 30.04.2026 stems from political vendetta, appears reasonably palpable.”
Pronouncing the order in open court, the Bench further observed:
“Since the Board has failed to show any emergent situation where any stream, water, land or environment is being polluted by poisonous effluents, it would be appropriate to allow the respondent-Board to take coercive steps only after affording a reasonable opportunity of 30 days to the petitioner-company for rectifying any minor defects/deficiencies.”
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry also granted liberty to the company to approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in the event of any coercive action by the Board.
The Court observed:
“The petitioner company is at liberty to approach the NGT in case any coercive steps are taken.”
The matter had drawn considerable political attention after PPCB teams conducted inspections at Trident’s Barnala unit shortly after Rajinder Gupta distanced himself from the ruling Aam Aadmi Party and joined the BJP along with several other Rajya Sabha members. BJP leaders had alleged that the action was politically motivated, although officials had not officially confirmed any such angle.
Earlier, on May 1, during an urgent hearing on Trident’s writ petition, the High Court had been informed that no coercive action would be taken against the company for three days.
In its petition, apart from alleging political vendetta, Trident Limited also argued that the action violated principles of due process. The company contended that prior notice and an opportunity of hearing were mandatory before such action could be initiated. Senior advocate Manisha Gandhi, appearing for the petitioner company, had termed the raid “unfortunate and politically motivated.”
What is the Wednesbury Principle?
The Wednesbury principle, also known as “Wednesbury unreasonableness,” is a legal standard used in judicial review to determine whether a decision of a public authority is so unreasonable or irrational that no reasonable authority could have taken such a decision. The principle originated from the landmark English case Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs Wednesbury Corporation (1948).
Operative Part of the Judgment
The Court observed that while it was not inclined to examine the merits of the dispute, the timing of the raid required consideration, particularly as it took place soon after Rajinder Gupta switched political allegiance from the Aam Aadmi Party to the BJP along with six other Rajya Sabha members on April 24, 2026.
Applying the Wednesbury principle, the Court held that the apprehension raised by the petitioner-company regarding political vendetta appeared reasonably plausible.
The Bench further held that since the PPCB failed to demonstrate any emergent environmental situation involving poisonous effluents polluting streams, wells, land, or the environment, coercive action could only be taken after providing the company a reasonable 30-day opportunity to rectify any deficiencies.
The Court also clarified that the petitioner-company would remain free to approach the National Green Tribunal under Section 33(B)(c) of the Water Act if any coercive action is initiated by the Board under Section 33-A of the Act.
With these observations and liberty, the writ petition was disposed of.