Bombay High Court: In a writ petition challenging an amended circular dated 15-2-2024 and Clause 19 of a Consent to Operate (‘CTO’), the Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar*, CJ and Gautam A. Ankhad, J., held that the restrictions imposed were illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and beyond jurisdiction. The Court observed that the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (‘MPCB’) lacked authority under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (‘HWM Rules’) to curtail an industry’s area of operation, and that such limits infringed the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Accordingly, both the circular and Clause 19 were quashed.
Background:
The dispute arose when an industry engaged in pre-processing of hazardous waste was granted CTO permitting operations across Maharashtra. Subsequently, MPCB issued the amended circular dated 15-02-2024, incorporating a condition that disposal of hazardous waste for co-processing shall be routed through Common Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility (‘CHWTSDF’) at Ranjangaon and Butibori. About sixteen months later, Clause 19 was inserted in the CTO dated 12-06-2025, restricting the area of operation to regions other than those allotted under a tripartite agreement.
The industry contended that the unilateral amendment of its CTO was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, and a colourable exercise of power. It argued that rights had accrued in its favour and any variation without hearing violated principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that Clause 19 imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right to carry on trade and business, contrary to the Rules which envisaged transboundary operations.
MPCB argued that the amended circular was issued under Rule 16 of the HWM Rules and pursuant to obligations under the tripartite agreement of 2004. It was contended that the agreement remained binding and enforceable, and MPCB was under a contractual obligation not to permit other facilities within the same catchment area. Counsel for the operator reiterated the validity of the agreement, asserting exclusive rights to collect hazardous waste from industries located under the allocation order. Objections were also raised regarding maintainability of the writ petition, suggesting alternate remedies under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is well accepted in common law jurisdictions and its nature, scope and extent are well crystallised and forms part of precedent law in India. It was held that the promise made by a party to another party through his words or conduct which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in future and knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and, in fact, so acted upon by the other party shall be binding on the party making the promise. The Court emphasised that the party making such a promise would not be entitled not to honor his promise, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings between the parties.
The Court noted that the option of the company to receive hazardous wastes from the industries located in the State of Maharashtra has been restricted under the Amended Circular and rightly submitted that the MPCB intends to create monopolistic situation in favour of the Maharashtra Enviro Power Ltd. inasmuch as the industries located in 15 zones are mandatorily required to supply their wastes to the CHWTSDF operated by the Maharashtra Enviro Power Ltd. The Court observed that the MPCB has no jurisdiction to curtail the business activities of the company by restricting the area of its operation and after the amendment in Consent to Establish (‘CTE’), the company shall be left with just 10 per cent of the geographical area in the State of Maharashtra.
The Court highlighted that the MPCB cannot take refuge to the Tripartite Agreement to issue the Amended Circular incorporating a clause which has no relation whatsoever with the duty and obligation under the Rules. It was emphasised that the Amended Circular dated 15-02-2024 has no sanctity in law and cannot be enforced qua the company to curtail its rights to receive the hazardous wastes and other wastes for pre-processing/co-processing from the industries located in the State of Maharashtra. The Court observed that the impugned Circular is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and infringes the right of the company under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The Court further noted that the provisions under the HWM Rules do not contemplate any power in the State Pollution Control Board to restrict the area of operation of the industry. It was observed that Rule 16 of the HWM Rules contemplates the role of the State Pollution Control Board to monitor the setting up and operation of the common or captive treatment, storage and disposal facility, but there is no indication under the Rules that the State Pollution Control Board can restrict the area of operation of an occupier of captive facility or operator of a common facility.
The Court emphasised that the Amended Circular dated 15-02-2024 is illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as it confines the area of operation for the company and provides that the disposal of hazardous wastes for pre-processing/co-processing shall be routed through CHWTSDF located at Ranjangaon and Butibori. It was observed that the amended Circular is not statutory in nature and it has no legal effect, sanctity or sanction.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the Circular dated 15-02-2024 and Clause 19 in the CTO issued to the petitioner company on 12-06-2025.
[Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 2885 of 2025, decided on 24-12-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w Akanksha Aggrawal i/by Abhishek Mehta a/w Gaurav Raj Shrawat & Tushar Khatri
For the Respondent: P. H. Kantharia, GP a/w Mr. Vishal Thadani, Addl. Govt. Pleader, Jayprakash Sen, Senior Advocate a/w Vishwanath Patil, Nidhi Chauhan, Advocates, Prashant Chavan, Senior Advocate a/w Komal Jadhav & Meet Vora i/by Navdeep Vora & Associates, Advocates, M. G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate a/w Shyam Dewani, Sumit Khanna & Chirag Chanani i/by Dewani Associates, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE