Trident Group moves High Court Against PPCB Action; granted relief until May 4; notice issued to Pb Govt

May 2, 2026

Trident Group a company owned by Rajya Sabha MP Rajinder Gupta, who ranks among the country’s leading industrial conglomerates, filed a petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The petition alleges that immediately after Gupta switched his political allegiance, the Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) initiated extraordinary actions against the factory out of a spirit of vendetta.

High Court issues notice 

The High Court has issued a notice to the Punjab government regarding the petition; meanwhile, the PPCB has assured the court that no punitive action will be taken against the company until May 4. The company informed the court that this industrial group—established in 1990—is a fully listed entity employing approximately 15,000 people and strictly adheres to all environmental standards.

The petition states that founder Rajinder Gupta has now stepped aside from active management and serves as Chairman Emeritus. He switched his political party on April 24. Immediately thereafter, the company’s management, key officials, and employees allegedly began receiving threats. On April 25, the company also dispatched a letter to the Union Home Secretary requesting security cover.

PPCB raid at factory premises 

It is alleged that on Thursday night, around 7:30 PM, a team of approximately 30 members from the Punjab Pollution Control Board arrived at the factory premises and conducted an operation in the manner of a raid. They restricted employee movement and failed to adhere to statutory protocols for sample collection.

The company contends that, under the applicable regulations, it is mandatory to provide the industry with a duplicate copy of any samples collected; however, this requirement was not fulfilled.

The petitioner has requested the court to direct that fresh samples be tested by a central agency located outside the state of Punjab, citing a lack of trust in the state machinery. Conversely, the PPCB clarified to the court that the exercise was merely a routine inspection, that no punitive measures or forced closure actions are currently being contemplated, and that the petition is based solely on apprehensions.

During the hearing, the court indicated that if the industry’s apprehensions are substantiated by facts, both the procedural conduct and the administrative impartiality involved would fall under the scope of judicial scrutiny.