The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday stayed 17 show-cause notices issued by the Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) to Rajya Sabha MP Rajinder Gupta-owned Trident group over alleged violation of various environmental norms at its Barnala facility.The court while passing the interim order, on state’s request, kept issue of maintainability of the petition open and has sought response from the government and PPCB by July 10. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)Gupta is the chairman emeritus of the company. He is one of the seven MPs who on April 24 quit the AAP and joined the BJP.“Prima facie, the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding the nature and tenor of the impugned notices, the fairness of procedure sought to be adopted for same as also the effect thereof vis-a-vis the directions issued by the division bench of this court, raises substantial questions requiring judicial scrutiny,” the bench of justice Sandeep Moudgil and justice Rupinderjit Chahal observed, while passing the order.The legal dispute stems from a PPCB raid at Trident’s Barnala unit on April 30, days after Gupta resigned from the AAP. In the first round, the company termed the inspection arbitrary and mala fide, alleging that the timing of the raid pointed to “extraneous and political considerations” linked to Gupta’s change in political affiliation. On May 8, the high court disposed of the plea while directing the PPCB not to take coercive action against the company’s Barnala unit without giving it 30 days to rectify any deficiencies.In the fresh round of litigation, the company had sought quashing of the 17 show-cause notices issued by PPCB issued on a single day, which it claimed where in violation of May 8 order of the high court.The company had told the court that its interference is warranted at show-cause notices stage only the language used in these notices is “mala fide” as much as they repeatedly record that the petitioner-company is guilty of “intentional and deliberate” violations.“..the matter has already been considered and decided by the competent authority, leaving little scope for an effective consideration of the petitioner’s response to the notices issued,” it was claimed, adding that once the authority has already formed a “final opinion” on the liability and action proposed, the grant of 30 days’ time to the petitioner for submitting a reply, is “nothing more than an empty formality and a mere eyewash”.It was informed that notices have been issued under the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and rules of 2016 i.e. Hazardous and other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 proposing refusal, cancellation and revocation of consents, environmental compensation and coercive directions.The court while passing the interim order, on state’s request, kept issue of maintainability of the petition open and has sought response from the government and PPCB by July 10. “In the meanwhile, the operation of show-cause notices Annexure P-8 to P-24 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing and no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner,” the court ordered.