The Bombay High Court examined the legality of restrictions imposed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) on the operations of an authorised hazardous waste pre-processing facility and held that imposing territorial limitations through executive circulars and consent conditions was beyond the Board’s jurisdiction and violated the fundamental right to practice any profession or carry on any business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The case arose from a writ petition filed by Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited, which had been granted consent to establish and operate a hazardous waste pre-processing facility capable of handling substantial quantities of hazardous waste sourced from industries across Maharashtra. The petitioner contended that an amendment introduced by the MPCB in February 2024, and subsequently incorporated as Clause 19 in its Consent to Operate (CTO), imposed arbitrary territorial restrictions by prohibiting it from receiving hazardous waste from specified industrial zones reserved for the exclusive use of another entity, thereby shrinking its operational area to a negligible portion of the State and undermining its business viability.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, accepted the petitioner’s submissions that the amended circular was not clarificatory in nature but constituted an impermissible exercise of power that effectively re-written statutory mandates. The Court noted that the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, under which the MPCB operates, impose duties on occupiers and empower the Board to ensure compliance with environmental standards but do not authorize the Board to impose geographical limits on the receipt and processing of hazardous waste. The Court observed that the MPCB’s circular and the resulting Clause 19 in the petitioner’s CTO sought to enforce obligations arising from a separate tripartite agreement at the expense of statutory rights enjoyed by the petitioner and that such enforcement could not be effected through executive instruments that were not sanctioned by law. The Bench held that the MPCB must act within the four corners of the Rules and cannot, by issuing circulars or guidelines, override or subvert the statutory framework that governs hazardous waste management.
In reviewing the constitutional implications of the impugned restrictions, the Court emphasised that the right to carry on business and trade is a fundamental right protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and any curtailment of that right must be justifiable, reasonable, and grounded in statutory authority. The High Court found that the territorial curbs introduced by the MPCB had the effect of arbitrarily curtailing the petitioner’s scope of operations without any legislative backing, and that such curbs could not be justified as a legitimate regulatory measure. The Court described the amended circular as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, holding that it infringed the petitioner’s fundamental right to conduct its business throughout Maharashtra and was therefore unconstitutional.
The Bench further remarked that the MPCB’s field for issuing circulars or guidelines was limited and that where a statutory scheme already delineates regulatory powers and duties, executive instruments must align with the provisions of the statute rather than expand or exceed them. In the context of hazardous waste management, the Court explained that the Rules empower State Boards to monitor and enforce compliance by occupiers of hazardous waste facilities but do not empower them to delineate the geographical limits of authorised operations or to impede the free movement of trade or business within a State. The High Court’s reasoning reflected the principle that administrative action, even under the guise of environmental regulation, must be anchored in legal authority and cannot impose restrictions that have the effect of nullifying statutory rights.
On these grounds, the Bombay High Court quashed the amended circular dated 15 February 2024 and Clause 19 of the CTO dated 12 June 2025, holding them to be illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. By doing so, the Court restored the petitioner’s ability to operate its hazardous waste pre-processing facility without territorial restrictions and reaffirmed the constitutional protection afforded to business operations against arbitrary regulatory action. This decision clarifies that pollution control boards, while entrusted with important environmental protection responsibilities, must exercise their powers within the statutory framework provided by environmental rules and cannot impose conditions that restrict trade or business rights beyond what the law permits.
(g)){kind=link}
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.