Bombay High Court
Rdc Concrete ( India ) Pvt. Ltd. vs Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation ... on 10 October, 2025
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2025:BHC-AS:44106
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
Arun Sankpal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12443 OF 2025
RDC Concrete (India) Pvt Ltd ..Petitioner
A Private Limited Company,
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA Duly registered under the provisions
SANKPAL
Digitally signed by of the Companies Act, 1956, having
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2025.10.10
22:24:10 +0530
its registered office 701, Thane One,
Ghodbunder Road, Majiwada,
Thane (W) -400 610.
Versus
1. Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner,
Having concerned Ward Office at,
Ward Office No. 6, Sahitya Ratna Lokshahir,
Anna Bhau Sathe Bhavan, Kashimira Police
Station, Kashimira, Thane: 401 107.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Office of Govt Pleader,
Department of Environment,
Government of Maharashtra,
New Administrative Building,
Madam Cama Road, Mantralaya,
...Respondents
Mumbai 400 001.
1/20
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2025 02:55:17 :::
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
Mr. Amogh Singh, with Atul Singh, for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. R. Bubna, for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. Suvita Prabhune, AGP, for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RESERVED ON: 6th OCTOBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 10th OCTOBER 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 30 th September
2025 passed by the Respondent No.1-Mira Bhayandar Municipal
Corporation, revoking the licence granted to the Petitioner to operate a
Ready Mix Concrete Plant.
3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts leading to this
Petition can be stated as under:
3.1 The Petitioner is a limited company, registered under the
Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of
manufacturing and supply of Ready Mix Concrete ("RMC"). The RMC
plant of the Petitioner is situated at Survey No. 30/1m Kasigaon, Mira
Road (E), Thane ("the subject premises") within the limits of the
Respondent No.1-Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation ("MBMC").
3.2 On 22nd June 2023, the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board
("MPCB") gave its consent to operate the RMC plant at the subject
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
premises. The consent to operate given by the MPCB is valid until 30 th
April 2026.
3.3 Pursuant to the aforesaid consent to operate, the Respondent
No.1, MBMC granted the licence to operate the RMC plant at the
subject premises. The said licence has been renewed for the period of 8 th
October 2024 to 7th October 2027. The Petitioner, in compliance with
the conditions subject to which the consent and licence have been
granted, is operating the said RMC plant at the subject premises.
3.4 The Petitioner asserts, in the wake of an unfortunate road
accident in the locality where the RMC plant of the Petitioner is
situated, involving a vehicle, not belonging to the Petitioner, and the
death of a boy therein, a complaint was lodged with the Respondent
No.1. Pursuant thereto , without verifying the facts, the Respondent
No.1 issued a show-cause notice to the Petitioner on 11 th September
2025, which was served on the Petitioner on 12 th September 2025 at
11.30 am, contending that the RMC plant was being operated in breach
of the guidelines contained in the Notification dated 7 th November 2016
issued by the MPCB. It was inter alia alleged that a school, namely,
Swami Dayanand High School, was situated within the radius of 200
mtrs of the RMC plant and, thus, there was breach of the sitting criteria,
i.e., commercial RMC plant should not be located within the 200 mtrs
from School, Colleges, Hospitals and Courts.
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
3.5 The Petitioner alleges, though the Petitioner was called upon to
submit an explanation forthwith, without providing any effective
opportunity of hearing, on 12th September 2025, under five hours of the
service of the notice on the Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 MBMC,
passed an order to revoke the licence to operate the RMC plant with
immediate effect and sealed the plant.
3.6 On 15th September 2025, the Petitioner filed a Reply to the notice
contending that the action of revocation of licence was wholly arbitrary,
it was taken for extraneous considerations and on the basis of false
allegations. In fact, Swami Dayanand High School was being run
unauthorisedly. Even otherwise, RMC Plant was not situated within the
radius of 200 mtrs of the said school. The applicability of the
Notification dated 7th November 2016 to the subject RMC plant was also
questioned.
3.7 As the Respondent No.1 did not revoke the order dated 12 th
September 2025 and restore the licence to operate the RMC plant, the
Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction.
4. On 26th September, 2025, as the Respondent No.1 expressed
willingness to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and
pass an order, the Petitioner was given opportunity to file additional
reply and/or documents before the Competent Authority and,
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
thereupon, the Competent Authority was directed to pass an
appropriate order.
5. By an order order dated 30th September 2025, the Respondent
No.1 again passed the order to revoke the licence to operate the RMC
plant and directed the Petitioner to immediately cease and desist the
operations at the RMC plant.
6. The Petitioner has thus amended the Petition and assailed the
legality and validity of the subsequent order dated 30 th September
2025, as well.
7. I have heard Mr. Amogh Singh, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, Mr. N. R. Bubna, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1
and Mrs. Savita Prabhune, the learned AGP, for the Respondent No.2-
State. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have
also perused the material on record.
8. Mr. Amogh Singh, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, took a
slew of exceptions to the impugned order. First and foremost, Mr.Singh
would urge the first order of revocation of licence dated 12 th September
2025 was passed in gross violation of the fundamental principles of
natural justice. The show-cause notice, dated 11th September 2025, was
served on the Petitioner on 12th September 2025 at about 11.30 am and,
under five hours thereof, the order to close the operations at subject
premises was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing of
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
whatsoever nature. The haste with which the Respondent No.1 passed
the said order on the very day on which the notice was served indicates
the extraneous driving force behind the said high-handed action. On
this count alone, according to Mr. Singh, the entire action stood
vitiated.
9. Secondly, Mr. Singh would urge, the very premise of the action
that the RMC plant was being operated in breach of the guidelines
under the Notification dated 7th November 2016 is completely flawed.
Mr. Singh would urge that, by the Notification issued on 27 th November
2024, the MPCB has framed separate guidelines for the RMC plants for
sitting criteria in Mumbai Metropolitan Region of Maharashtra.
Therefore the said Notification dated 7th November 2016, does not at all
apply to the subject RMC plant. Resultantly, the very foundation of the
action is manifestly wrong.
10. Thirdly, the order dated 30th September 2025, also suffers from
the same vice of revoking the licence by resorting to inapplicable
provisions. In addition, the Respondent No.1 has taken into account the
other alleged breaches of the conditions of licence, of which no notice
was ever given to the Petitioner. The impugned order dated 30 th
September 2025 thus suffers from a patent illegality as it came to be
passed on the basis of the grounds which did not form part of the show-
cause notice.
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
11. An effort was made by Mr Singh to urge that on facts also the
allegation that the RMC plan is located within the radius of 200 mtrs
from the Swami Dayanand High School is not correct.
12. In opposition to this, Mr. Bubna, the learned Counsel for the
Respondent No.1, forcefully refuted the submissions on behalf of the
Petitioner. Mr. Bubna made a valiant effort to support the impugned
orders. Mr. Bubna would urge, the Petition is required to be determined
keeping in view the disastrous consequences the RMC plant has on the
environment, if it is operated in a densely populated area. Viewed
through this prism, according to Mr. Bubna, no fault can be found with
the impugned orders.
13. Mr. Bubna would urge, if the submission on behalf of the
Petitioner is accepted, a RMC plant within the limits of the Mumbai
Metropolitan Region would not be subject to any restriction in the
matter of sitting criteria. Neither the Notification dated 7th November
2016 would apply, nor the sitting criteria under the Notification dated
27th November 2024 wold govern such RMC plant. Such a construction,
which would lead to an absurd situation, cannot be adopted, was the
thrust of the submission of Mr. Bubna.
14. Laying emphasis on the Notification dated 27 th November 2024 as
regards the sitting criteria, Mr. Bubna would urge under the said
guidelines, the commercial plant should not be located within 500 mtrs
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
from school, colleges, hospitals and Courts. The Respondent No.1-
MBMC, has, according to Mr. Bubna, correctly applied the guidelines
contained in the Notification dated 7th November 2016.
15. Mr. Bubna would submit that the ground that the principles of
natural justice were not followed is unworthy of countenance. Pursuant
to the order passed by this Court, the Petitioner was provided an
efficacious opportunity of hearing. The contention that the other
grounds, which were taken into account by the Competent Authority,
while passing the order dated 30th September 2025, were not informed
to the Petitioner is of no consequence as the Petitioner was aware of all
those breaches and was provided a fair opportunity of hearing.
Therefore, viewed from any perspective, the challenge to the impugned
orders does not warrant acceptance, submitted Mr. Bubna.
16. To begin with, it is necessary to note few uncontroverted facts.
The grant of consent to establish the RMC plant by MPCB vide
communication dated 12th January 2023 is not in dispute. Nor the fact
that by a further communication dated 26 th June 2023, the first consent
to operate was granted subject to certain conditions, for the period upto
30th April 2026. There is material to indicate that in consonance with
the consent given by MPCB, the Respondent No.1 initially granted a
licence to operate the RMC plant on 31 st March 2023 and the said
licence seems to have been further renewed on 11 th October 2024 for
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
the period of 8th October 2024 to 7th October 2027, albeit subject to
certain terms and conditions.
17. Incontravertibly, the show-cause notice was issued on 11 th
September 2025. The Petitioner was called upon to submit his
explanation along with the documents in regard to a grievance that the
Petitioner was operating the RMC plant within a radius of 200 mtrs of
Swami Dayanand High School. Even if the aspect of the date and time
of service of the said notice on the Petitioner is kept aside, the fact
remains that on 12th September 2025, the licence to operate the RMC
plant was revoked.
18. The first question that thus wrenches to the fore is, whether an
efficacious opportunity was given to the Petitioner. The answer to the
aforesaid question hinges upon the nature and contents of the notice to
be given by an authority who is invested with the power to take
administrative decisions which have civil and, at times, penal
consequences.
19. Issuance of notice where there is a statutory mandate to provide
an opportunity of hearing, presents not much difficulty. Where the
statute mandates that the Authority shall provide an opportunity to
make a representation, and also consider the representation so made,
the obligation to give notice before taking action can only be construed
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
as peremptory. A notice to the person likely to be affected must also be
such as to enable the noticee to make an effective representation.
20. Even where there is no statutory obligation to give notice, the
Authority which takes the administrative decision is enjoined to give a
notice to the affected person as the administrative decision would entail
civil consequences. Such a notice must equip the noticee to not only
clearly appreciate the grounds of noncompliance/default/breach
complained of but also the action which would be taken in the event of
failure to show the cause.
21. A profitable reference in this context can be made to the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs
Government (NCT of Delhi) and Ors,1 wherein the Supreme Court
examined the adequacy of the contents of show-cause notice. In the said
case, the question arose in the context of the form and content of the
show-cause notice that was required to be served, before deciding as to
whether the noticee was to be blacklisted or not. The observations of
the Supreme Court in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said judgment are
instructive and, hence, extracted below
"21 The Central issue, however, pertains to the
requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be
taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of
Show Cause Notice is to make the noticee understand the
precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This
would require the statement of imputations detailing out
1 (2014) 9 SCC 105.
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so
that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another
requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which
is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also
be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that
proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if
the defaults/ breaches complained of are not satisfactorily
explained. When it comes to black listing, this requirement
becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact
that it is harshest possible action.
22. The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of
show cause notice is primarily to enable the noticee to
meet the grounds on which the action is proposed against
him. No doubt, the High Court is justified to this extent.
However, it is equally important to mention as to what
would be the consequence if the noticee does not
satisfactorily meet the grounds on which an action is
proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that in
order to fulfil the requirements of principles of natural
justice, a show cause notice should meet the following two
requirements viz:
i) The material/ grounds to be stated on which
according to the Department necessitates an
action;
ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed
to be taken. It is this second requirement which
the High Court has failed to omit.
we may hasten to add that even if it is not specifically
mentioned in the show cause notice but it can be clearly
and safely be discerned from the reading thereof, that
would be sufficient to meet this requirement."
(emphasis supplied)
22. The Supreme Court has, thus, enunciated that in order to fulfill
the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show-cause notice
was to satisfy two requirements; first, the alleged infirmities, breaches,
or defaults, which constitute the material or ground necessitating the
action. Second, the nature of the action which is proposed to be taken
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
so that the noticee is in a position to show that the proposed action is
not warranted, even if it is assumed that there is no satisfactorily
explanation regarding the alleged infirmities, breaches or defaults.
23. In the case of UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs Food
Corporation of India & Anr,2 the Supreme Court emphasised the
necessity of reasonable opportunity of hearing before any action is
taken. The observations in paragraph 13 read as under:
"13. At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first
principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against
whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or
interests are being affected should be given a reasonable
opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of
natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the
authority concerned should give to the affected party a
notice of the case against him so that he can defend
himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds
necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed
should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An
order travelling beyond the bounds of notice is
impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent. This
Court in Nasir Ahmad v. Assistant Custodian General,
Evacuee Property (1980) 3 SCC 1, has held that it is
essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds
on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so
as to enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If
these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be
said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of
being heard."
(emphasis supplied)
24. In the said case, after adverting to the previous precedents,
including Gorkha Security Service (Supra), the Supreme Court
2 (2021) 2 SCC 551.
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
postulated, it is clear that a prior show-cause notice granting a
reasonable opportunity of being heard is an essential element of all
administrative decision-making and particularly so in the decisions
pertaining to blacklisting which entail grave consequences for the entity
being blacklisted.
25. If the show-cause notice dated 11th September 2025 is appraised
on the aforesaid touchstone, it can be legitimately inferred that the said
notice falls foul of reasonable opportunity test. The Petitioner was
called upon to give an explanation along with the documents forthwith.
No outer limit for showing cause or furnishing the explanation was
provided. A show-cause of even less than 24 hours, even if the
contention of the Petitioner that the show-cause notice was served on
him on 12th September 2025 at 11.30 am is discounted, cannot be said
to be reasonable by any standard.
26. Thus, the resultant action of revoking the licence and a direction
to immediately close the operations on 12th September 2025 rendered it
clearly high handed, arbitrary and in flagrant violation of fundamental
principles of natural justice.
27. The justifiability of the action on the count that the RMC plant
was being operated in breach of the conditions in the guidelines as to
sitting criteria next warrants consideration. It is pertinent to note, the
sole ground mentioned in the show cause notice was, the breach of the
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
condition not to have the RMC plant within the radius of 200 meters of
a school. A reference was made to the guidelines issued by the
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board vide notification dated 7 th
November, 2016. The sitting criteria in terms of the said notification
read as under:
"B. SITTING CRITERIA
The following sitting criteria shall be considered for establishment of
RMC Plant.
......
3. Commercial RMC plant should not be located within 200 m
from schools, colleges, hospitals and courts."
28. The edifice of the challenge to the action was sought to be built
on the premise that the aforesaid notification dated 7 th November, 2016
no longer governed the RMC plants within the limits of Mumbai
Metropolitan Region in view of the Circular dated 27 th November, 2024
issued by MPCB and the separate guidelines for the RMC plants in
respect of sitting criteria in Mumbai Metropolitan Region of
Maharashtra dated 27th November, 2024.
29. The circular dated 27th November, 2024 explicitly records that the
guidelines for RMC plants issued vide notification dated 7 th November,
2016 for sitting criteria were applicable for the entire State of
Maharashtra. The MPCB vide notification dated 27th November, 2024
has issued the guidelines for RMC plant for sitting criteria which would
be applicable only for the Mumbai Metropolitan Region area in the
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
State of Maharashtra. And the notification dated 7th November, 2016
would be applicable for the rest of the Maharashtra.
30. The circular dated 27th November, 2024 is explicitly clear and
unambiguous. The decision of MPCB to have two different sitting
criteria; one for the RMC plants for Mumbai Metropolitan Region area
and the other for the rest of the Maharashtra is unequivocal. The
notification dated 27th November, 2016 would continue to govern the
RMC plants situated in the State of Maharashtra, other than the
Mumbai Metropolitan Region. Whereas the guidelines prescribed vide
the notification dated 27th November, 2024 would apply to the RMC
plants in Mumbai Metropolitan Region.
31. In the Notification dated 27th November, 2024, under Clause-C of
the guidelines captioned 'Sitting Criteria' for commercial plants, the
following provisions are made:
"C. SITTING CRITERIA
1) New commercial plants within the jurisdiction of Municipal
Corporation/Municipal Councils areas of MMR shall be allowed only
after getting approval of committee at HQ, MPCB.
2) New commercial plants (outside the corporation areas of MMR)
shall maintain a buffer zone of approximately 500 mtr. Distance from
human habitation having 1000 souls or more as per census population
and 500 mtrs. from major road (National/State Highway, Major District
Roads).
3) Commercial plants (outside the Municipal Corporation/
Municipal Councils area) should not be located within 500 mtr. From
schools, colleges, hospitals and Courts.
4) Land required for the new Commercial RMC plant (outside the
Municipal Corporation/Municipal Councils area) shall be minimum
4000 sq. mtrs.
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
5) All existing/new plants shall be fully covered from all sides like a
box structure by using tin/similar type of material within a period of 03
months from the date of issuance of this Notification and shall submit
Bank Guarantee of Rs.25.0/- Lakh towards compliance of the same."
32. A faint attempt was made by Mr. Bubna to submit that the
commercial plants within the Mumbai Metropolitan Region now should
not be located within 500 meters from School, Colleges, Hospitals and
Courts. I am afraid, the submission is plainly against the express text of
sub-clause (3) of the guidelines. The restriction of the RMC plant not
being located within 500 meters from the Schools, Colleges, Hospitals
and Courts does not apply to the commercial plants within the
Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council areas, as the same appears to
have been exempted by employing the expression, (outside the
Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council area). This device of
exclusion is further underscored by the fact that in clause (2) also the
rule making authority has exempted the RMC plants within the
corporation limits of MMR from maintaining the minimum buffer zone
of approximately 500 meters distance from human habitation having
1000 souls or more as per census population and 500 meters from
major road. Likewise, in clause (4) the requirement of minimum 4000
square meters land for new commercial RMC plant is not made
applicable by exempting the commercial plants within the Municipal
Corporation/Municipal Council area.
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
33. The rule making authority, it seems, took cognizance of the
scarcity of land in the Municipal Corporation area, within the limits of
MMR, and the possible impracticability of the implementation of those
restrictions and thus exempted the RMC plants from the requirements
of maintaining the buffer zone, distance and the minimum area of the
land which houses the RMC plants. The guidelines made applicable for
RMC plants for sitting criteria in MMR region by Notification dated 27 th
November, 2024, therefore cannot be read to mean that the commercial
plants within MMR region now should not be located within 500 meters
from Schools, Colleges, Hospitals and Courts. To achieve the balance,
the rule making authority has taken care to provide additional
conditions and restrictions than those found in the sitting criteria in the
Notification dated 7th November, 2016.
34. It is imperative to note that the order dated 30 th September, 2025
records that to ascertain which of the guidelines apply to the subject
RMC plant, guidance was sought from MPCB. However, there was no
response from MPCB. The Competent Authority thus recorded the view
that the guidelines dated 7th November, 2016 apply to the subject RMC
plant.
35. The said view of the respondent No.1 is clearly unsustainable.
Suffice to note that the MPCB took care to again reiterate in the
Notification dated 27th November, 2024 that the guidelines issued
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
thereunder are only for MMR area of Maharashtra and existing
guidelines published vide notification dated 7 th November, 2016 remain
in force in the rest of the Maharashtra.
36. The aforesaid being the governing norm, the impugned action
based on the sitting criteria prescribed under the notification dated 7 th
November, 2016 is wholly unsustainable.
37. Mr. Bubna made an endeavour to persuade the Court to sustain
the impugned action for the reasons given in the order dated 30 th
September, 2025. In addition to the ground of the subject RMC plant
being located within the radius of 200 meters of School, in the
impugned order dated 30th September, 2025, the Competent Authority
seems to have considered the purported breaches of the other
conditions subject to which the licence to operate was granted, namely,
deficiencies in tree plantation alongwith the periphery of the plot and
water treatment and disposal facility for generated effluent in the RMC
plant.
38. Indisputably, none of the above deficiencies and breaches were
brought to the notice of the petitioner in the show cause notice dated
11th September, 2025. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to
demonstrate that there were no deficiencies, as alleged, and that the
petitioner has not committed breach of any of the conditions subject to
which the consent has been granted by MPBC and the license issued by
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
the respondent No.1. As enunciated in the case of UMC Technoligies
(supra) an order travelling beyond the bounds of the notice is
impermissible and without jurisdiction.
39. The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is that the endeavour
of Mr. Bubna to sustain the impugned action on the basis of the grounds
adverted to by the respondent No.1 in the order dated 30 th May, 2025,
in respect of which the petitioner was not given any opportunity to
show cause, cannot be countenanced.
40. Resultantly, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set
aside. However, it is required to be clarified that this determination
would not preclude the respondent No.1 and MPCB from taking
appropriate action in respect of the subject RMC plant if it is found that
the RMC plant is being operated in breach of the conditions subject to
which the consent to operate has been given by MPCB and licence has
been issued by respondent No.1, after providing an effective
opportunity of hearing and in accordance with law.
41. Hence the following order:
: O R D E R:
(i) Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The orders dated 12th September 2025 and 30th
September 2025 stand quashed and set aside
-WP-12443-2025.DOC
(iii) The licence to operate RMC plant stands restored
subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the
licence dated 11th October 2024 and the consent of the
MPCB.
(iv) It is clarified that if MPCB or the Respondent No.1
find that there is breach of any of the conditions subject o
which consent and licence to operate RMC plant have
been granted, the MPCB and the Respondent No.1 are at
liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law
after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.
No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
