Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging a closure order dated 19th December 2025 passed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB). The closure order was issued on the ground that the petitioner was operating its industrial unit without a valid consent to operate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The petitioner contended that the closure order was passed without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing and that the petitioner had applied for renewal of consent, which was pending. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and MPCB, argued that the petitioner had been operating without consent for a considerable period and that show-cause notices were issued, but the petitioner failed to comply. The court examined the provisions of the Water Act and Air Act, which require any industry to obtain consent to operate from the Board. The court noted that the petitioner's consent had expired and no valid consent was in force at the time of the closure order. The court also observed that the principles of natural justice were followed as show-cause notices were issued and the petitioner was given an opportunity to respond. The court held that the closure order was justified and dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under the relevant Acts if aggrieved.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Closure Order - Validity - Petitioner challenged closure order passed by MPCB for operating without valid consent to operate under Water Act and Air Act - Court held that the closure order was justified as the petitioner failed to obtain necessary consents and the principles of natural justice were complied with - Held that the writ petition was dismissed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the closure order passed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) against the petitioner for operating without valid consent to operate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the closure order passed by MPCB. The court held that the petitioner was operating without valid consent and the closure order was justified. The petitioner was directed to approach the appellate authority if aggrieved.
Law Points
- Environmental law
- Consent to operate
- Closure order
- Natural justice
- Alternate remedy
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (12) 210
Writ Petition No. 2885 of 2025
Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ, Gautam A. Ankhad, J.
Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Akanksha Aggrawal i/by Abhishek Mehta a/w Mr. Gaurav Raj Shrawat & Mr. Tushar Khatri, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. P. H. Kantharia, GP a/w Mr. Vishal Thadani, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Jayprakash Sen, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Vishwanath Patil, Ms. Nidhi Chauhan, Advocates for the Respondent No.2-MPCB. Mr. Prashant Chavan, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Komal Jadhav & Mr. Meet Vora i/by Navdeep Vora & Associates, Advocates for the Respondent No.3. Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Shyam Dewani, Mr. Sumit Khanna & Mr. Chirag Chanani i/by Dewani Associates, Advocates for the Respondent No.4.
Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a closure order passed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the closure order dated 19th December 2025 and direction to allow the unit to operate.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's industrial unit was closed by MPCB for operating without valid consent to operate under the Water Act and Air Act.
Issues
Whether the closure order passed by MPCB without valid consent to operate is sustainable.
Whether principles of natural justice were violated in passing the closure order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that closure order was passed without adequate hearing and that renewal application was pending.
Respondents argued that petitioner operated without consent for long period and show-cause notices were issued.
Ratio Decidendi
An industrial unit must obtain valid consent to operate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Failure to do so justifies closure by the pollution control board, and principles of natural justice are satisfied if show-cause notices are issued and opportunity of hearing is given.
Judgment Excerpts
The closure order was justified as the petitioner failed to obtain necessary consents and the principles of natural justice were complied with.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the closure order dated 19th December 2025 passed by MPCB. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 24th December 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974:
- Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981:
- Constitution of India: Article 226
