Move NGT: Punjab and Haryana High Courts denies relief to Punjab Kesari group over hotel closure

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday declined to interfere with the Punjab Pollution Control Board's order to close of a 72-room hotel owned by media group Punjab Kesari in Jalandhar [The Hind Samachar Limited & another v State of Punjab & Others]

A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry on Friday refused to entertain the petitions and said the petitioners can approach the National Green Tribunal 9NGT) under Section 33B(c) of the Water Act against the actions.

However, no action will be taken against the hotel for a week in view of an earlier order passed by the Supreme Court on January 20.

"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 bench clarified.

The media group, which publishes the highest circulating Hindi and Punjabi dailies in Punjab, has accused the Aam Aadmi Party-led State government of targeted harassment in recent weeks.

The media group publishes the newspapers Punjab Kesari, Jag Bani and Hind Samachar.

The media group has alleged that a series of actions against it were triggered by news reports concerning AAP National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal.

Besides the hotel, operations at the newspapers' printing press in Ludhiana had also been affected due to an order passed by the board.

However, the Supreme Court on January 20 ordered that the printing press be allowed to operate uninterruptedly even as it clarified that a status quo shall be maintained at the hotel.

The top court had said the interim relief will operate for a week after the High Court pronounces its verdict on petitions moved by Punjab Kesari group.

Subsequently, the High Court pronounced its verdict on Friday.

It did not find any substance in the argument that since principles of natural justice were violated while directing the action, the remedy of judicial review was open to be invoked.

It opined there were sufficient reasons for the board to invoke its emergent powers to close down the hotel. The Court ruled that in an emergent situation, the board is empowered to close down the operation of any institution to prevent further damage from being caused by effluents without affording opportunity of prior hearing.

"The Board constituted a team of officers who inspected the premises of the petitioner-hotel on 13.01.2026 and found the deficiencies in the requirement of compliance under the Water Act and Rules framed thereunder, which have already been mentioned above. Thereafter, the Board applied its mind over the said deficiencies pointed out by the team of officers and found that emergent situation exists to invoke the emergent powers under Sections 32 & 33A of the Water Act, and thus, directed closure of the petitioner-hotel and disconnection of electric supply, without first issuing show-cause notice," it said.

The Court rejected the argument that had the hotel management been afforded opportunity, they could have removed the deficiency.

"This argument is heard to be rejected on the ground that if opportunity was given in an emergent situation, then the very purpose of vesting the Board with emergent powers would stand defeated," it said.

The Court also did not agree with the submission that since no reasons were supplied by the board to the petitioners, no closure or disruption in electric supply could have been ordered.

"The Statute, neither the Water Act nor the Punjab Water Rules oblige the Board to supply reasons so assigned for taking emergent action. The only statutory requirement is that the reasons should be recorded in writing, and therefore, should contain in the noting of the file concerned from the Board to be produced as and when challenge is made in a Court of law," it reasoned.

Senior Advocates Chetan Mittal, Akshay Bhan, Gaurav Chopra with advocates Prateek Gupta, Shifali Goyal, Himanshu Bindal, Pranshu Goyal and Avichal Sharma argued for the petitioners.

Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi with advocates Kavita Joshi and Sangam Garg appeared for the State of Punjab and PSPCL.

Senior Advocate DS Patwalia with advocate AS Chadha represented the Punjab Pollution Control Board.

[Read Order]