Court Holds That MPCB's Circular and Amendments to Consent Order Violate Fundamental Rights and Lack Legal Sanction
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has quashed a controversial circular issued by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) that imposed restrictions on the operational area of Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited, a company engaged in the pre-processing of hazardous waste in Maharashtra. The court held that the circular and the consequent amendment to the company's Consent to Operate (CTO) violated the company's fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution and were arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, delivered the judgment on December 24, 2025, in response to a writ petition filed by Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited. The company had challenged the MPCB's amended circular dated February 15, 2024, and the insertion of a restrictive Clause 19 in its CTO issued on June 12, 2025.
The court emphasized the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which prevents the government and its instrumentalities from acting against their promises where it leads to manifest injustice. The court observed that the petitioner-company had relied on statutory permissions and made significant investments based on these permissions, and the subsequent restrictions imposed by the MPCB were unjust.
Furthermore, the court found that the MPCB's actions were not supported by the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, which govern the management of hazardous waste. The Rules did not empower the MPCB to restrict the operational area of a company, and the court noted that the circular was an overreach of MPCB's authority, lacking any legal sanctity or jurisdiction.
The court also highlighted that the amended circular created a monopolistic situation favoring another entity, Maharashtra Enviro Power Limited, by mandating industries in certain zones to route their hazardous waste through this entity. This, the court said, was contrary to the principles of free trade and business.
In its judgment, the court annulled both the circular and Clause 19 of the CTO, thereby restoring the company's rights to operate freely across Maharashtra. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and respecting the fundamental rights of entities engaged in lawful business activities.
Bottom Line:
Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - Can be applied against government and its instrumentality to prevent manifest injustice - However, it cannot compel performance of something prohibited by law - Application of doctrine in case where statutory permissions were granted to a company, which later altered its position based on said permissions.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(g); Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016
