The Bombay High Court has quashed the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board’s (MPCB) amended circular dated February 15, 2024, and a consequential condition imposed in the Consent to Operate (CTO) of Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Ltd., holding that the State Board lacks statutory power to impose territorial “area allocation” or mandate routing of hazardous waste through specific CHWTSDF facilities.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad held that the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 do not authorise MPCB to restrict the geographical catchment of pre-processing or co-processing units or to enforce zone-based routing of hazardous waste through selected facilities.
The dispute arose after MPCB amended its earlier circular on hazardous waste pre-processing and, relying on an alleged operational arrangement linked to the Ranjangaon and Butibori CHWTSDFs, introduced a regime under which industries in specified zones were required to route waste through those facilities. Pursuant to this, Clause 19 was inserted in the petitioner’s CTO dated June 12, 2025, effectively preventing it from collecting hazardous waste from large parts of the State.
The Court held that such restrictions could not be introduced through an administrative circular or a consent condition, and rejected MPCB’s reliance on a 2004 Tripartite Agreement, observing that contractual arrangements cannot expand regulatory powers beyond the statutory framework.
Allowing the petition, the Bench set aside the impugned circular and the CTO condition, reiterating that regulatory authorities must operate strictly within the limits prescribed by law.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Akanksha Aggrawal i/by Abhishek Mehta a/w Mr. Gaurav Raj Shrawat & Mr. Tushar Khatri, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 (State) : Ms. P. H. Kantharia, GP a/w Mr. Vishal Thadani, Addl. Govt. Pleader.
For the Respondent No.2-MPCB: Mr. Jayprakash Sen, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Vishwanath Patil, Ms. Nidhi Chauhan, Advocates.
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Prashant Chavan, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Komal Jadhav & Mr. Meet Vora i/by Navdeep Vora & Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondent No.4: Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Shyam Dewani, Mr. Sumit Khanna & Mr. Chirag Chanani i/by Dewani Associates, Advocates.
