The principles of natural justice do not apply in cases of gross violations of environmental laws, and the court's discretionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegalities.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard Mr Ayush Agarwal for the Petitioner. Mr More learned Additional Government Pleader appears for the State of Maharashtra.

2. This Petition was moved before us citing extreme urgency and after obtaining orders for placing this matter before this Bench.

3. The Petition challenges the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board’s closure directions dated 5 March 2025 at Exhibit ‘A’ (pages 42 and 43) of this Petition.

4. Mr Agarwal submitted that the Regional Officer, Mumbai, has issued this order. In terms of Office Order No.E/28 of 2000 at Exhibit ‘R’ (pages 131 and 132), regional officers can exercise the powers of the Board only in cases of extreme urgency. He pointed out that this office order also requires the Regional Officers to follow the principles of natural justice before exercising the powers of the Board.

5. Mr Agarwal submits that the impugned closure directions have been issued without compliance with principles of natural justice and any case of extreme urgency being made out. He submitted that prosecution has already been filed against the Petitioner. He submitted that though the Petitioner may not have obtained environmental clearance for constructing the mall or may not have any consent to establish or operate the mall, still the impugned closure directions should not have been issued because the Petitioner applied under some amnesty scheme in 2016, and this application is still pending. For these reasons, he submitted that this Petition be admitted, and interim order issued.

6. We have considered Mr Agarwal’s submissions in the context of the impugned closure directions dated 5 March 2025 and the office order at Exhibit ‘R’. Admittedly, the Petitioner has constructed a mall and has commenced operations in this mall without obtaining any environmental clearance before such mall was built and operations commenced. Further, there is also no dispute that the operations at this mall were commenced without obtaining any consent to establish/operate from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. These basic, and we should say gross, facts are undisputed and were admitted by the Petitioner.

7. The argument about non-compliance with principles of natural justice may be debatable in the gross facts of this case. However, there can be no unnatural expansion of the principles of natural justice entirely divorced from the realities of the situation. Once the Petitioner has admitted to having constructed a mall without obtaining any environmental clearance and further admitted to not obtaining consent to establish/operate such a mall, we fail to see how such a Petitioner can complain about any alleged violation of principles of natural justice.

8. There was no clarity about the application under some amnesty scheme. No amnesty scheme entitles establishment or operations without consent under the Air and Water pollution control legislation. The alleged pendency of an application under some amnesty scheme does not operate as some deemed environmental clearance or entitle the lawbreaker to continue to break the law indefinitely. The contention that the Petitioner has applied for under some amnesty scheme certainly does entitle the Petitioner to reap commercial profits at the cost of environmental concerns.

9. The argument that the Regional Directors can exercise powers only in extreme urgencies cannot be countenanced, at least in the facts of this case. Operating a mall that is put up without obtaining any environmental clearance is extremely serious and operating such a mall without obtaining consent to establish/operate magnifies the seriousness of the ecological issue. The argument almost suggests that the Regional Director had to wait for some environmental disaster and only then exercise the powers delegated to him or her. That would not be the correct interpretation of the office order cited before us.

10. The faint contention that no closure directions could have been issued until the prosecution launched