Environmental compliance orders based on re-inspection to verify remedial measures require no fresh show-cause notice.

The petitioner, running a hotel (Dynasty Resort), challenged an order dated 28.04.2026 issued by the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board (UPCB) which directed the immediate closure of the unit and the payment of ₹2,14,000 as environmental compensation.

Inspections on 07.10.2024 and 04.12.2024 revealed the discharge of effluents from the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) exceeded prescribed norms.

The petitioner replied to a show-cause notice on 28.02.2025, claiming improvements had been made.

A re-inspection on 08.05.2025 confirmed continued non-compliance and the illegal burning of solid waste.

The petitioner contended that the re-inspection was conducted behind their back and that there was an administrative delay in passing the final order.

1. Whether the closure order was vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of a fresh notice regarding the May 2025 inspection.

2. Whether the petitioner was present during the inspection and had been granted sufficient opportunity to represent their case.

3. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file fresh objections regarding current STP compliance.

Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which empower the Board to issue directions, including closure or disconnection of services, to prevent pollution.

The Court took cognizance of the ongoing monitoring of hotel-related pollution in Nainital under the Public Interest Litigation Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand, WPPIL No. 121 of 2025.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the inspection was conducted ex-parte, noting that the inspection report specifically named two representatives of the petitioner as being present.

One of those representatives had submitted a written request for 24 hours to vacate guests before the sealing of the premises, which the Court viewed as an acknowledgment of the enforcement action.

Regarding the lack of a fresh show-cause notice after the May 2025 inspection, the Court held that the re-inspection was merely to verify the petitioner's prior defense; since the defense was found factually incorrect, no fresh notice was required.

The Court emphasized that continuous discharge of non-compliant effluents is "disastrous to the environment" and therefore justifies the Board’s intervention.

The Court directed Respondent No. 2 (UPCB) to decide on these objections within two weeks and held that the impugned closure order would remain in effect and its finality would abide by the upcoming decision on the petitioner’s new objections.