Trident-PPCB Dispute: Company alleges political Vendetta; HC reserves verdict

May 5, 2026

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reserved its verdict after hearing all parties involved in a petition filed regarding a dispute between Trident Limited and the Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB). Trident a company owned by Rajya Sabha MP Rajinder Gupta, has characterized the Board’s actions as an act of political vendetta.

Representing the company, counsel argued that the inspection conducted by a 30-member team on the evening of April 30, around 7:30 PM, was not a routine inquiry but rather a measure intended to exert pressure.

Trident submitted to the court that the company had obtained the necessary permissions valid through April 7 and April 13, and that compliance was satisfactory during recent inspections. Consequently, questions arise regarding the sudden nature of the action taken.

The company contends that this step was initiated only after a shift in the founder’s political allegiance, thereby rendering the action appear retaliatory.

Trident’s Demand: Investigation by an Independent Laboratory
Trident has demanded that the inspection be conducted by a joint team comprising members from both the Central and State Pollution Control Boards, and that the collected samples be tested at an independent laboratory located outside the state of Punjab. Additionally, the company appealed for a stay on any punitive action until it has been granted a proper hearing. The court observed that while the chronological sequence of events might give rise to apprehensions, any relief granted would strictly adhere to the due process of law.

PPCB’s Response: No Adverse Order Issued
Dismissing the company’s allegations, the PPCB stated that the exercise in question was merely a routine inspection. Objecting to the use of the term “raid,” the Board clarified that the inspection of large industrial units constitutes a standard part of its operational procedure, noting that hundreds of such inspections have been conducted in recent months. The Board further clarified that, to date, no adverse order has been passed against the company. Under these circumstances, the Board argued that the petition is premature, and the demand to preemptively halt potential future actions falls beyond the permissible scope of judicial intervention.