Uttarakhand High Court
WPMB/17/2026 of MS GARG INDUSTRIES PARTNERSHIP FIRM Vs UTTARAKHAND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD on 7 January 2026
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/B) No.17 of 2026 M/S Garg Industries Partnership Firm ….....Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Pratap
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/B) No.17 of 2026
M/S Garg Industries Partnership Firm
….....Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board
….….Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Coram:
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge is made to the order dated 12.08.2025/14.08.2025 as well as order dated 04.10.2022, passed by the State Pollution Control Board, by which, the different amount of penalty has been imposed on the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without affording any opportunity of hearing or issuing any notice, the penalty has been imposed; therefore, the orders are bad in the eyes of law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, in fact, opportunity of hearing could not be given to the petitioner. Therefore, these orders will be withdrawn by the respondent within
2 a week and, thereafter, after affording fresh opportunity of hearing, orders in accordance with law, shall be passed.
5. The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned counsel for the respondent.
6. In view of the statement given by the learned counsel for the respondent, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
07.01.2026 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd5 04686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8 EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699 , cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2026.01.09 17:20:35 +05'30'