State Pollution Control Board Can't Issue Guidelines To Curtail Rights To Receive Hazardous Waste For Pre-Processing: Bombay High Court
A Petition was filed by Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Ltd., challenging the validity of the amended circular, which restricted their area of operation.
The Bombay High Court has observed that the Central Government did not provide a power to the State Pollution Control Board to issue guidelines, especially rights to receive the hazardous wastes and other wastes for pre- processing/co-processing from the industries located in the State of Maharashtra.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed, “The MPCB is to act within four corners of the Rules. The field for issuing any Circular, guidelines etc. is occupied by the Central Government and the MPCB has no jurisdiction to issue a Circular contrary to the provisions under the Rules and to impede the free movement of trade and business. The Amended Circular is not issued to clarify the provisions under the Rules for the benefit of the stakeholders or to secure effective compliance with the provisions thereunder. A Circular could never be intended to be used as an instrument of circumvention and subversion of the provisions under the Rules. The amended Circular dated 15th February 2024 is not statutory in nature and it has no legal effect, sanctity or sanction.”
Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas Senior Advocates Prashant Chavan, M. G. Bhangde, Jayprakash Sen, and Government Pleader P. H. Kantharia appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the case
The Petitioner, Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited, was aggrieved by the amendment in Circular, is challenging the consequential change in its Consent to Operate issued. The petitioner-company states that it is directly impacted by the insertion of clause 19 in the CTO dated 12th June 2025, by which the area of its operation has been restricted and reduced to almost negligible. According to the petitioner-company, the action of Respondent no.2-MPCB in incorporating Clause 19 in the CTO dated 12th June 2025 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and a colourable exercise of power by it.
Contentions of the parties
It was contended by the Petitioner that the MPCB acted in gross violation of the rules of natural justice by unilaterally amending the CTO. Relying on the precedent of Director General of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports, he argued that the petitioner had acquired vested rights and "legitimate expectations" through its statutory clearances, which cannot be curtailed without a fair hearing.
The petitioner further challenged Clause 19 of the CTO, labelling it an unreasonable restriction on the constitutional right to carry on trade and business. It was argued that the new conditions contradict the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, which expressly permit transboundary operations. Finally, it was asserted that the 2004 Tripartite Agreement is no longer enforceable, as it has been superseded by the current Rules and did not originally contemplate the specific activities (pre-processing/co-processing) now at issue.
The MPCB maintained that the Amended Circular was a valid exercise of power under Rule 16 of the HWM Rules and the Board’s general power of superintendence. It was emphasized that the Tripartite Agreement remains valid, subsisting, and binding on both the MPCB and the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), as it has never been legally challenged. The Board contended that the petitioner’s rights are not absolute, noting that the company still retains the authority to collect waste from thirteen designated districts.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed, “This is well settled that the doctrine of promissory estoppel may be applied against the government and its instrumentality where it is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. This doctrine cannot be invoked to compel the government or even a private party to perform something which is prohibited by law, but then, there is nothing on record or even argued before us that the CTO granted to the petitioner-company did not entitle it in law to carry its operations throughout Maharashtra or even beyond its boundaries. In “Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd.”6 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if a party has changed or altered his position by relying on the assurance or representation made by the other party, there is no need to prove any damage, detriment or prejudice to the party asserting the estoppel. There is a series of judgments laying down the true import and expanse of the doctrine of promissory estoppel which is sometimes called equitable estoppel and we do not feel it necessary to catalogue all such judgments on the points.”
The Court further said that the MPCB cannot take refuge in the Tripartite Agreement to issue the Amended Circular incorporating a clause which has no relation whatsoever with the duty and obligation under the Rules.
“The Amended Circular dated 15th February 2024 has no sanctity in law and cannot be enforced qua the petitioner-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 impugned Circular is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and infringes the right of the petitioner-company under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.”, the Court said.
Conclusion
The Court said, “The MPCB has no jurisdiction to curtail the business activities of the petitioner-company by restricting the area of its operation. After the amendment in CTE, the petitioner-company shall be left with just 10% of the geographical area in the State of Maharashtra and its area of operation has been restricted to Palghar, Thane, Mumbai Suburban, Mumbai City, Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg…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. The Amended Circular dated 15th February 2024 has no sanctity in law and cannot be enforced qua the petitioner-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 impugned Circular is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and infringes the right of the petitioner-company under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition.
Cause Title: Green Gene Enviro Protection And Infrastructure Limited v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:26745-DB]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina, Advocates Akanksha Aggrawal, Abhishek Mehta, Gaurav Raj Shrawat and Tushar Khatri
Respondents: Senior Advocates Prashant Chavan, M. G. Bhangde, Jayprakash Sen, Government Pleader P. H. Kantharia, Additional Government Pleader Vishal Thadani, Advocates Vishwanath Patil, Nidhi Chauhan, Komal Jadhav, Meet Vora, Navdeep Vora, Shyam Dewani, Sumit Khanna and Chirag Chanani.