Bombay High Court Quashes Closure Order Against Distillery in Pollution Case — Violation of Natural Justice. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board's order under Sections 33-A and 31-A of Water and Air Acts set aside for non-compliance with principles of natural justice and failure to consider petitioner's reply.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Baramati Agro Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in manufacturing sugar, allied products, and ethanol production, and operates a distillery unit at Shetphalgadhe, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, with a capacity of 600 KLPD. The unit commenced operations in 2007-08 and is the largest ethanol supplier in Maharashtra. The petitioner had obtained environmental clearance (EC) under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, on 20 March 2017, and consent to operate from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (the Board), which was renewed from time to time. On 27 September 2023, the Board issued an order under Sections 33-A and 31-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, directing the petitioner to close down its manufacturing activities at the distillery unit within 72 hours. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The main legal issues were whether the closure order was sustainable in law, particularly when the show cause notice was not served on the petitioner and the petitioner's reply was not considered. The petitioner argued that the Board had not served any show cause notice prior to the closure order and that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Board contended that the show cause notice was sent by email and that the petitioner had replied, but the court found that the notice was not served on the correct email address and that the Board did not consider the petitioner's reply. The court held that the Board violated principles of natural justice by not serving the show cause notice and not considering the petitioner's reply. The court quashed and set aside the closure order, granting liberty to the Board to issue a fresh show cause notice and pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner. The court also directed the Board to consider the petitioner's submissions regarding compliance with conditions.

Headnote

A) Environmental Law - Closure Order - Natural Justice - Show Cause Notice - Sections 33-A and 31-A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - The petitioner challenged the closure order of its distillery unit issued by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. The court held that the Board failed to serve the show cause notice on the petitioner and did not consider the petitioner's reply, violating principles of natural justice. The closure order was quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Board to issue a fresh notice and pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner. (Paras 1-10)

B) Environmental Law - Consent to Operate - Environmental Clearance - Validity - The petitioner had obtained environmental clearance and consent to operate from the Board, which were renewed from time to time. The court noted that the Board's order did not address the petitioner's submissions regarding compliance with conditions. (Paras 4-6)

C) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Right to Hearing - The court emphasized that before passing a drastic order of closure, the Board must afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected party. Failure to serve the show cause notice and consider the reply renders the order invalid. (Paras 7-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the closure order dated 27 September 2023 passed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board under Sections 33-A and 31-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, respectively, is sustainable in law, particularly when the show cause notice was not served on the petitioner and the petitioner's reply was not considered.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court quashed and set aside the closure order dated 27 September 2023. The Board is at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice and pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Law Points

  • Principles of natural justice
  • Show cause notice
  • Right to hearing
  • Section 33-A Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
  • 1974
  • Section 31-A Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
  • 1981
  • Closure order
  • Environmental clearance
  • Consent to operate
  • Pollution control board
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 114

Writ Petition (St.) No. 26702 of 2023

2023-10-19

Nitin Jamdar, Manjusha Deshpande

2023:BHC-AS:31297-DB

Mr. J.P. Sen, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Akshay Shinde with Mr. Rohan Sathaye, Mr. S.V. Abhang, Yadnaseni Gaikwad, Mr. Jeevanridya Joshi for the Petitioner; Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Ms. Jaya Bagwe for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Ms. R.A. Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent No.3 - State

Baramati Agro Ltd.

The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Pune; Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board; State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ Petition challenging closure order issued by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board under pollution control laws.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the closure order dated 27 September 2023 and restoration of operations.

Filing Reason

The Board issued a closure order without serving a show cause notice and without considering the petitioner's reply, violating principles of natural justice.

Previous Decisions

The Board had previously granted and renewed consent to operate and environmental clearance to the petitioner.

Issues

Whether the closure order dated 27 September 2023 passed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board under Sections 33-A and 31-A of the Water and Air Acts is sustainable in law? Whether the Board violated principles of natural justice by not serving the show cause notice and not considering the petitioner's reply?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that no show cause notice was served prior to the closure order and that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. Board contended that the show cause notice was sent by email and that the petitioner had replied, but the court found the notice was not served on the correct email address and the reply was not considered.

Ratio Decidendi

A closure order under pollution control laws must be preceded by a proper show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing. Failure to serve the notice and consider the reply violates principles of natural justice, rendering the order invalid.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitioner – Baramati Agro Limited is a Company registered under the Companies Act. It is engaged in manufacturing sugar, allied products, and ethanol production. Exercising power under Sections 33-A and 31-A of the Act of 1974 and Act of 1987, respectively, the Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board (the Board), by order dated 27 September 2023, directed the Petitioner to close down its manufacturing activities of the Petitioner’s distillery unit at Shetphalgadhe, Taluka - Indapur, District – Pune within 72 hours of the order. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 27 September 2023.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the closure order dated 27 September 2023 issued by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 19 October 2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: 33-A
  • Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: 31-A
  • Environmental Protection Act, 1986:
  • Companies Act, 1956:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Closure Order Against Distillery in Pollution Case — Violation of Natural Justice. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board's order under Sections 33-A and 31-A of Water and Air Acts set aside for non-compliance with principles...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Appeal Against Refusal to Initiate Criminal Complaint for Alleged Offences Under IPC. Court holds that mere filing of civil suit and criminal complaint does not warrant initiation of proceedings under Section 340...