JUDGMENT :

SHEEL NAGU, CJ.

1. This petition invoking writ as well as supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prays for following relief:

(i) Quash the disconnection order dated 14.01.2026 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent No.3.

(ii) Quash notice dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure P-7) issued by respondent No.2 directing disconnection of electric supply to the premises of petitioner No.2.

(iii) Directing respondent No.7 (Director of Information and Public Relations, State of Punjab) to issue advertisement in favour of petitioner No.1 as was being done prior to 02.11.2025.

(iv) Consequential interim relief connected to the main relief.

2. Since one of the impugned orders (Annexure P-7) is passed by the Punjab Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Board’), this Court as well as respondents raised preliminary objections as to maintainability of this petition in view of un-availed alternative statutory remedy of approaching National Green Tribunal (NGT) under Section 33B of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for brevity ‘the Water Act’).

2.1 The petitioners, during the pendency of this petition, filed CM-738-2026 accompanied by letter dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure P-9) mentioning the grounds on which the emergent powers under Section 32 were invoked under the Water Act read with Rule 34(6) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975 (for brevity, ‘the Water Rules), further read with Rule 32(6) of the Punjab Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1977 (for short, ‘the Punjab Water Rules’).

3. In view of the objections, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the preliminary objections first, in the following terms.

3.1 Learned counsel for respondents raised preliminary objections to the following effect:

(i) The powers exercised vide the impugned orders (Annexure P-7 & P-8) are vested with the Board under Section 32 read with Section 33A of the Water Act.

(ii) Since the aforesaid power has been exercised within the four corners of law by invoking the emergent power under Rule 32(6) of the Punjab Water Rules read with Rule 34(6) of the Water Rules, the appropriate remedy before the petitioners is to approach the NGT under Section 33B of the Water Act.

(iii) The petitioner has not assailed the order (Annexure P-9) dated 13.01.2026 of the Board assigning reasons for invoking the emergent powers.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioners, in support of the maintainability of this petition, raised following grounds:

(i) The petitioners have been denied reasonable opportunity of being heard as no show-cause notice was given and the objections to the same were not considered before taking impugned action of closure and disconnection.

(ii) Order (Annexure P-7) which is purported to have been passed under Section 33A of the Water Act, is a non-speaking order.

(iii) The reasons for closure and disconnection were supplied after the impugned action was taken.

(iv) Had the petitioners been granted opportunity of being heard, the deficiency as pointed out would have been removed.

(v) It is, thus, contended that the remedy of judicial review is always open to be invoked by the petitioners in the given facts and circumstances.

(vi) The judgment of Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. & others, (2019) 19 SCC 479 has been relied upon.

(vii) Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in WRIT-C No.10259 of 2019 passed on 31.05.2019 in HMA Agro Industries Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others is relied upon.

5. Pertinently, the nature of pollution involved in the present case is the effluent discharged by the petitioner-hotel situated in Project Park Plaza, Civil Lines, Jalandhar, which has 72 rooms, one banquet hall, two restaurants and a swimming pool. The reasons assigned by the Board, on inspection carried out on 13.01.2026 are to the following effect:

“(1) The hotel has not