DYNASTY RESORT vs UTTARAKHAND POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
2026:UHC:3595-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (M/B) No.366 of 2026
th
12 May, 2026
Dynasty Resort -----Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board and Others
----Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Abhilasha Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Verma, Addl. Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT : ( per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J. )
1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated
28.04.2026 issued by the Regional Officer, Uttarakhand
Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Haldwani by
which various directions have been issued in exercise of
powers conferred under Section 33(A) of Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974 and Section
31(A) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981. The directions inter-alia provides for forthwith
closure of the unit and for deposit of environmental
compensation of ₹2,14,000/-.
2. The order records that the petitioner is running
a hotel and of which inspection was made by the officials
of the Regional Office on 07.10.2024 and 04.12.2024 and
1
2026:UHC:3595-DB
in which it transpired that the petitioner was violating
various provisions of the Acts and the Rules.
3. One of the main violations which was found was
that discharge of effluents from STP was beyond the
prescribed norms. The petitioner was issued a show-cause
notice on 10.02.2025 based on the observations of the
Inspecting Team.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that in response
to the said notice, it submitted a reply on 28.02.2025 in
which it was categorically stated that since after the
inspection, improvements had been made in the STP plant
and now discharge from the STP is as per prescribed
norms. Various other pleas were also raised in respect of
other violations.
5. The order records that again on 08.05.2025
inspection was carried out at the premises of the
petitioner and sample was drawn from the STP plant of
the petitioner and it was sent for testing. The report
indicates that the discharge of effluents from STP was still
in deviance with the prescribed norms. It was also found
that the petitioner was disposing of solid waste generated
from the hotel by burning it in the open in clear violation
of the legal provisions. Consequently, the order for sealing
of the premises and for payment of environmental
compensation has been passed.
2
2026:UHC:3595-DB
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the
following submissions:
a) That the respondents have not considered the
objections of the petitioner dated 28.02.2025.
b) The inspection dated 08.05.2025 was not
carried out in presence of the petitioner nor the
report of the inspection was made available to
the petitioner.
c) The requirement of law is that after
inspection, order should be passed within 45
days, whereas in the instant case, the
inspections were done on 07.10.2024,
04.12.2024 and 08.05.2025 and the order was
passed on 28.04.2026 with considerable delay.
7. Learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Pollution
Control Board has placed on record a compilation of
documents to demonstrate that the sample was drawn on
08.05.2024 in presence of the representatives of the
petitioner.
8. The inspection report dated 08.05.2024 has
also been made part of the compilation and it indicates
that at the time of inspection on 08.05.2025 Ms. Seema
and Mr. Navin Chandra Dothal representatives of the
petitioner were present. The analysis report of the
3
2026:UHC:3595-DB
laboratory in respect of the sample collected on
08.05.2025 is as follows:
S.No. Parameters Results Unit Test Method Standards for sewage
and industrial effluent
discharge in to stream
1. Colour Blackish - Visual Colourless as far as
practicable.
2. Odour Pungent - Sensory Odourless as far as
practicable.
3. pH 6.53 - APHA 4500 H*B: 6.5-9.0
4. Total
Suspended
Solids
120 mg/L APHA 2540 D <100
5. Total Dissolved
Solids
1251 mg/L APHA 2540 C -
6. Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
54 mg/L IS 3025(Part 44) 30
7. Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
260 mg/L IS 3025(Part 58):
<250
2023,
9. It is submitted that the inspection was carried
out on 08.05.2025 only to ascertain the correctness of the
stand taken by the petitioner in its reply dated 28.02.2025
that it had made improvements in the STP and now the
effluent discharge from STP is within prescribed norms.
10. As the defense was found to be incorrect,
therefore, the impugned order has been passed and no
fresh notice was required to be given on the basis of the
inspection carried out on 08.05.2025. It is further
submitted that the closure order was sought to be
enforced yesterday. Ms. Seema, the same representative
of the petitioner, who was present at the time of
inspection had given a request in writing that the
petitioner be granted 24 hours’ time as various rooms
4
2026:UHC:3595-DB
were stated to be in occupation of different guests. She
had given the undertaking that the guests would vacate
on the next day and, thereafter, the order be enforced.
Based on the said undertaking given by the representative
of the petitioner firm, the enforcement of the impugned
order was deferred for today.
11. We have considered the rival submissions and
perused the material on record.
12. It has come on record that the matter relating
to pollution of various hotels in the town of Nainital is
being monitored in WPPIL No.121 of 2025, ‘Lalit Miglani
Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’. In the said
proceedings, the Pollution Control Board was required to
file affidavit in respect of the concerns raised by the PIL
petitioner. Therein the Pollution Control Board took the
stand that in the inspection conducted by it, the hotels
M/s Holidays Homes and M/s Dynasty Resort were found
non-compliant and that a closure order had been passed
on 28.04.2026 against the Dynasty Resort.
13. It is not disputed that on the basis of
inspections made on 07.10.2024 and 04.12.2024 a show-
cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner in
reply submitted on 28.02.2025 did not dispute that the
effluent discharge from the STP was not meeting the
standard at the time of inspections.
5
2026:UHC:3595-DB
14. The defense taken is that the petitioner had
made improvements in the STP and thereafter the
discharge was stated to be within prescribed norms. In
order to ascertain the correctness of the said defense,
inspection was again carried out on 08.05.2025. Although
the inspection report does not bear signatures of the
representatives of the petitioner but the report specifically
mentions name of Ms. Seema and Mr. Navin Chandra
Dothal who were present at the time of inspection.
15. It is not disputed before us that yesterday when
team of the Pollution Control Board went at the site to seal
the premises, an application with request to grant a day’s
time to the petitioner to ensure that the guests vacate the
premises, was filed by Ms. Seema, on behalf of the
petitioner, and she has also signed the writ petition and
the affidavit in support of it. She has been authorized by
the Board of Directors of the petitioner company to file the
present writ petition (Annexure No.1), as such, we do not
find much force in the contention that the inspection was
carried out behind the back of the petitioner.
16. The report indicates that the effluent from the
STP was beyond the prescribed norms. The continuous
discharge of effluents from STP beyond prescribed norms
would be disastrous to the environment. The action, prima
6
2026:UHC:3595-DB
facie, is based on re-inspection and ascertainment of the
defense set up in the objections.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage
states that the petitioner be given liberty to file objection
against the inspection report and the respondents be
directed to examine the same. The submission is that now
the STP has been improved and the discharge is within
prescribed norms.
18. In view of the said stand, we deem it
appropriate, in the interest of justice, that time be granted
to the petitioner to file fresh objections. In the event, any
objection is filed by the petitioner against the inspection
report, the same shall be decided by respondent no.2
within two weeks.
19. The impugned order would abide by the decision
that would be taken by respondent no.2 on the objections
as may be filed by the petitioner.
20. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
21. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 12.05.2026
SS
SUKHBANT
SINGH
Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd
129a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEB
D2B7D72C42261361AED33172F152148D,
cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2026.05.14 10:10:22 +05'30'
7