Patna High Court
Toshiba Water Solutions Pvt. Ltd.versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The order dated 27.08.2025 directing environmental compensation is quashed as it was passed without due process.
Summary
Toshiba Water Solutions Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.08.2025 of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board that directed the company to deposit Rs 1.07 crore as environmental compensation under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The petitioner alleged that the inspection leading to the fine was conducted behind its back, no inspection report was provided, and the Board failed to afford a hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The High Court held that the Board had not complied with statutory procedural requirements and therefore quashed the compensation order. The Court directed that any future inspection must be videographed, the inspection report and a pen‑drive copy be handed over to the petitioner, and the petitioner’s representative must be present during inspection. The writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the order imposing environmental compensation under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is valid in view of alleged procedural irregularities.
- Whether the Bihar State Pollution Control Board complied with the principles of natural justice and statutory procedure in conducting the inspection.
- Whether the Board should be mandated to videograph inspections and provide inspection reports to the affected party.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- environmental compensation
- pollution control board
- natural justice
- inspection report
- videography
- Water Act
- quashing order
- writ petition
- environmental law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.776 of 2026
======================================================
Toshiba Water Solutions Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Pioneer
Urban Square, 4th Floor Tower-D, Sector-62, Gurugram, 122098 through its
Site Incharge, STP Chapra, namely Ankit Kumar, aged about 31.years, Male,
Son of Awadhesh Kumar Singh, resident of Near D.A.V. Public School,
Gaachi Tola, Dumri, Begusarai, Bihar 850110 currently residing at Maila
Tanki, C/o BUIDCO, Near Road No.6, Opposite Dheeraj Optics, Rajendra
nagar, Patna-800004.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest and
Climate Change Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Parivesh Bhawan, Plot No.NS-B/2,
Patliputra Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna-800010 through the Member
Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna.
5. The Chairman, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Parivesh Bhawan, Plot
No.NS-B/2, Patliputra Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna-800010.
6. The Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Parivesh
Bhawan, Plot No.NS-B/2, Patliputra Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna-
800010.
7. Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. through its
Managing Director, Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation
Ltd., Patna.
8. The Managing Director, Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development
Corporation Ltd., Patna, The Chief General Manager, Bihar Urban
Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Patna.
9. The Chief General Manager, BUIDCo, Patna.
10. The Project Director (Civil) Town Development Division, East Patna,
BUIDCo, Patna.
11. The Executive Engineer, Town Development Division, East Patna, Bihar
Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashish Giri, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Riya Giri, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kr. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravi Kumar, AC to GP-13
Mr. Akshay Lal Prasad, AC to GP-13
For the BSPCB : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.776 of 2026(5) dt.30-04-2026
2/6
For the BUIDCO : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rabindra Priyadarshi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 30-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ashish Giri, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner duly assisted by Ms. Riya Giri, Mr. Rabindra
Priyadarshi, learned counsel representing the Bihar Urban
Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (henceforth for
short, ‘the BUIDCO’) and Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, learned
counsel representing the Bihar State Pollution Control Board
(henceforth for short, ‘the Board’) as also the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“i. To issue writ/order or direction in the
nature of Certiorari for quashing the order
contained in Ref. No. 285957 dated 27.08.2025
issued under the signature of the Chairman, Bihar
State Pollution Control Board by which the
petitioner was directed to the deposit Rs.
1,07,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seven Lacs Only)
as environmental compensation in the name of
Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control
Board.
ii. To produce and set aside the
Patna High Court CWJC No.776 of 2026(5) dt.30-04-2026
3/6
inspection team report of the Bihar State Pollution
Control Board dated 01.02.2025 and the report of
the committee of the State Board on the basis of
which environmental compensation has been
imposed upon the petitioner.
iii. To pass interim / ex-parte interim
order staying the operation of order contained in
Ref. No.285957 dated 27.08.2025 issued under the
signature of the Chairman, Bihar State Pollution
Control Board by which the petitioner was directed
to the deposit Rs.1, 07,00,000/- as environmental
compensation in the name of Member Secretary,
Bihar State Pollution Control Board.
iv. To any other relief or reliefs for which
the petitioners are found to be entitled in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
3. This order be read in continuation of the order
dated 09.04.2026 passed in the case of Toshiba Water
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC
No. 761 of 2026) where in the facts were incorporated in
paragraphs 14 to 16 which read as under:
“14. Having heard the parties and
Patna High Court CWJC No.776 of 2026(5) dt.30-04-2026
4/6
perusing the records, it is clear that ‘the Board’
has utterly failed in its duty. The inspection was
done behind the back of the petitioner/his
representative, no inspection report was handed
over but on the basis of the said report, a fine
was imposed. Pursuant to the notice issued, the
petitioner presented his case.
15. However, in complete non-application of
mind and without answering to the points raised
by the petitioner, an order dated 27.08.2025 was
passed by the Chairman of ‘the Board’ reiterating
its earlier stand.
16. The petitioner has clearly made out a case.
However to be fair to ‘the BUIDCO’ as also to
‘the Board’, it would be appropriate that the
petitioner file reply to the counter-affidavit filed
on behalf of both ‘the Board’ as also ‘the
BUIDCO’ in the next two weeks.
4. Pursuant thereto, the reply to the counter affidavit
has been filed and the stand once again of the petitioner is/are
that:
(i) inspection took place behind the
Patna High Court CWJC No.776 of 2026(5) dt.30-04-2026
5/6
back of the petitioner and/or his
representative;
(ii) no inspection report was handed
over to the petitioner which forms
basis of the imposition of the fine.
5. In paragraph-18 of the said order dated
09.04.2026 it has been recorded that from now on, it will be
mandatory for the Bihar State Pollution Control Board
(henceforth for short ‘the Board’) to do the videography of the
entire movement of their officials from the visit to the
premises/inspection till the report is prepared, signed and
they leave the place. This is needed for the complete
transparency both on the part of the person/premises where
the visit/inspection takes place as also ‘the Board’ to show
their bona fide that they have acted in accordance with law.
‘The Board’ shall be duty bound to provide pen drive of the
inspection alongwith the inspection report.
6. The respondents ‘Pollution Control Board’
though try to justify their action but have failed to answer to
the claim put forward by the petitioner that inspection took
place behind their back and the inspection report was not
provided before this imposition of the fine.
Patna High Court CWJC No.776 of 2026(5) dt.30-04-2026
6/6
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, reference no.
285957 dated 27.08.2025 (Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition)
issued by the Chairman of ‘the Board’ stands quashed.
8. ‘The Board’ is at liberty to re-inspect the
premises of the petitioner in accordance with law and must
ensure that:
(i) the representative of the
petitioner firm is present at the time
of inspection line with the provision
of Water(Prevention & Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974;
(ii) the entire inspection be
videographed uninterrupted;
(iii) the inspection report alongwith
the pen drive must be made
available to the petitioner’s firm.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…