GREEN GENE ENVIRO PROTECTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
Restriction on Hazardous Waste Processing: High Court Quashes MPCB Circular and CTO Clause for Lack of Jurisdiction and Infringement of Trade Rights.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:26745-DB
Decision Date: 24-12-2025
List of Laws
The Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016; The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; The Companies Act, 1956; Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
- Facts: Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited challenged an amendment in a circular issued by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and the consequential insertion of Clause 19 in its Consent to Operate (CTO). The amendment restricted the area of operation for the petitioner-company, requiring hazardous waste for co-processing to be routed through a specific Common Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility (CHWTSDF). The petitioner argued this was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and an unreasonable exercise of power.
- Procedural Posture: The case came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay via a writ petition filed by Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents, including the MPCB.
- Issue: Did the MPCB have the jurisdiction to issue the amended circular and insert Clause 19 in the CTO, thereby restricting the petitioner-company's area of operation and mandating the routing of hazardous waste through a specific CHWTSDF? Does the amended circular infringe upon the petitioner's right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India?
- Holding: The High Court held that the amended circular dated 15th February 2024 and Clause 19 in the CTO issued to the petitioner-company on 12th June 2025 were illegal and without jurisdiction and were therefore quashed. The writ petition was allowed.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Central Government did not provide the State Pollution Control Board with the power to issue guidelines that contradict the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. The MPCB's role is to act within the confines of these rules. The amended circular, by restricting the petitioner's area of operation and mandating a specific disposal route, impeded the free movement of trade and business and was contrary to the rules. The Court also noted that the MPCB failed to disclose information about other similar industries and whether their operations were similarly restricted. The Court emphasized that a circular cannot be used as an instrument to circumvent the existing rules. The court also invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, noting the petitioner had made significant investments based on prior permissions.
🔒 For Members Only