Bombay High Court
Ashish Vilasrao Ghatge vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 12 January, 2024
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2024:BHC-AS:1661-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10808 OF 2023
Ashish Vilasrao Ghatge ] .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Department of Environment, ]
Forest and Climate Change ]
2. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Mumbai ]
3. Arogyam Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur ] .. Respondents
Mr. Vinod P. Sangvikar, with Ms. Namrata Vora, for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. G.P., with Ms. Nisha M. Mehra, AGP, for
Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Jitendra Jagtap for Respondent No.2-MPCB.
Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar, with Mr. Mayur Mohite, for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ
DATE : 12TH JANUARY, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT : { Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. }
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Ms. Mehra, learned AGP
waives notice for respondent no.1-State, Mr. Jagtap, learned counsel
waives notice for respondent no.2 and Mr. Mohite, learned counsel waives
notice for respondent no.3.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 30 th June
2023 that has been issued by the respondent no.2-Maharashtra Pollution
Control Board, thereby granting consent to Establish CBMWTSDF under
Section 25 of the Water (P&CP) Act, 1974, Section 21 of the Air (P&CP)
Act, 1981 and Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, respectively,
under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, in favour of respondent no.3.
1-WP-10808-2023.doc
Dixit
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no.3
was called upon to furnish various documents for consideration of it's
proposal. However, though the respondent no.3 did not supply those
documents, the Board has proceeded to approve "in principle" consent.
The petitioner has thereafter, on 19th July 2023, made a representation to
the Principal Secretary of the Board and has sought revocation of the said
consent. Since nothing further has happened in the matter, the present
writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Board submits that under
Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974,
remedy of preferring an appeal is available to the petitioner since the
petitioner is aggrieved by the grant of consent in favour of respondent
no.3. He, however, submits that if the representation made by the
petitioner on 19th July 2023 is pending, the same shall be decided in
accordance with law.
4. In aforesaid facts, the following directions would serve the ends of
justice :-
(i) The Concerned Authority of the Board shall hear the
petitioner as well as the representative of respondent
no.3 and consider the petitioner's representation
dated 19th July 2023.
(ii) To facilitate consideration of the said representation,
the petitioner as well as the representative of the
respondent no.3 shall remain present in the office of
the Board on 22nd January 2024 at 11:30 a.m. The
said Authority shall take into consideration all
relevant aspects as well as relevant statutory
provisions and decide the representation.
1-WP-10808-2023.doc
Dixit
(iii) Within a period of three weeks from that date, the
representation of the petitioner shall be decided.
(iv) The decision taken shall be communicated to the
parties.
(v) In case any party is aggrieved by the decision taken
on the representation, such party is free to take
appropriate legal recourse.
(vi) All points on merits are kept open.
5. Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
1-WP-10808-2023.doc
Dixit
