2026:HHC:33787 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.  : 410 of 2026 Decided on    : 11.08.2026 M/s Symboisis Pharmaceautical Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus HPSPCB …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr.   R.L.   Sood,   Senior Advocate,   with   Mr.   Manik Sethi, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms.   Oshin   Anand   Chauhan, Advocate,   with   Mr.   Lalit Kumar, Environment Engineer and   Mr.   Tarun   Thakur, Assistant   Law   Officer,   along with the record. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) In the present petition, the main grievance of the   petitioner,   is   that   before   passing   the   order   dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P­3), no notice was served upon the petitioner, by the respondent. 2. By   way   of   the   order   (Annexure   P­3),   the respondent   Board   has   imposed   the   penalty   of   Rs. 43,68,750/­,   upon   the   petitioner,   with   a   direction   to deposit   the   same   with   Member   Secretary,   HP   State 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:33787 Pollution Control Board, Bank of Baroda account, within three days, failing which, action under the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, would be initiated against the petitioner. 3. As   per   the   documents   annexed   with   the petition, the petitioner has preferred the appeal before the HP   State   Pollution   Control   Appellate   Board,   under   the provisions   of   Section   28   of   the   Water   (Prevention   and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. challenging Annexure P­3 However,   the   said   appeal   has   been   disposed   of   by   the Secretary   (Environment,   Science,   Technology   &   Climate Change)   to   the   Government   of   Himachal   Pradesh­cum­ Appellate   Authority,   constituted   under   Section   28(1)   of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, on 06.01.2026, by passing the following order:­ “After   hearing   both   the   parties   and   in   view   of   the submissions made by them, this Appellate Authority is of the   considered   view   that   based   upon   the   submissions made by the respondent Board it is observed that the matter   is   to   be   decided   primarily   with   the   issue   of Jurisdiction first and hence, at present the matter is not considered on merits. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable as the scope of Section 28 of the Water Act, 1974 is limited to appeals filed by the persons   aggrieved   against   the   orders   of   the   State Pollution   Control   Boards   to   the   grant,   refusal   or cancellation   of   consents   and   related   matters   passed under Section 25, Section 26 or Section 27 of the Water Act, 1974 and hence, an appeal against the directions 3 2026:HHC:33787 issued   by   the   State   Boards   under   Section   33A   of   the Water Act lies before the NGT under Section 33B.” 4. Thereafter, the petitioner again approach to the Secretary   (Enviornment,   Science,   Technology   &   Climate Change) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh – cum – The Appellate Authority, under the provisions of Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, against   the   penalty   imposed   upon   the   petitioner,   vide Annexure P­3. The said appeal has also been disposed of by Secretary (Environment, Science, Technology & Climate Change)   to   the   Government   of   Himachal   Pradesh­cum­ Appellate Authority, constituted under Section 28(1) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, by passing the following order:­ “Further, if the contention of the Appellant unit is to be accepted that the order passed by the respondent Board is composite in nature (i.e. the order is considered to be passed under the provisions of both the Air Act, 1981 and the Water Act, 1974), even in such a case, the appeal shall not be maintainable before the Appellate Authority due to lack of jurisdiction, in view of the decisions cited above. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.” 5. When the petitioner could not get the decision of   appeals   before   the   said   two   authorities,   then,   the present petition has been filed. The main grievance before this Court is that the principle of Audi alteram partem has 4 2026:HHC:33787 not been adhered to, by the respondent before imposing the penalty and no adjudication had ever been taken place, in the present case. 6. Record   produced   by   the   authority   of   the respondent Board, perused. 7. Even   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent Board, on instructions  from  the officers, present in the Court, could not point out as to how the matter has been dealt with by the respondent Board, when the reply to the notices were submitted by the petitioner. 8. Record is also silent about the fact, as to how the   Board   had   come   to   the   conclusion   to   impose   the penalty   vide   Annexure   P­3   on   the   petitioner. The respondent   authority   is   legally   oblige   to   pass   reasoned order before imposing the penalty Annexure P­3, upon the petitioner   and   said   order   has   been   passed   without assigning   any   reason   and   adhering   to   the   principle   of natural   justice.   The Board is under  legal  obligation  to issue show cause notice qua environment compensation to the petitioner and to seek the version of the petitioner and thereafter require to pass a reasoned order, imposing the penalty. 5 2026:HHC:33787 9. The respondent Board, in the present case, has relied upon the decision of Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Original Application No. 593/2017 (arising from W.P. (Civil) No. 375/2012 on the file of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled as “Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Anr. Versus Union   of   India   &   Ors.”.     The   learned   counsel   for   the respondent Board could not point out as how on the basis of   decision   of   National   Green   Tribunal,   the   Board   can bypass the principle of natural justice before imposing the penalty on the petitioner. 10. Considering the above facts, on account of non adherence   to   the   principle   of   natural   justice,   the   order Annexure   P­3,   is   liable   to   be   set   aside.     Ordered accordingly. 11. However, the respondent Board is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law and after adhering the principle of natural justice. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. (Virender Singh) 11th August, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)