Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1504
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, J, Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM
Shakti Plastic Industries – Appellant
Versus
MPCB & Ors. – Respondent
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.210 OF 2025 (WZ) | APPEAL NO.148 OF 2025 (WZ)
For the Appellant: Mr. Ashok M. Sarogi, Mr. Yashwant D. Thorat, Mr. Jayant Yadav
For the Respondents: Ms. Manasi Joshi, Ms. Pooja Natu, Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni
Amendments to appeals under statutory frameworks are permitted to reflect changing circumstances, while adhering to established limitations.
Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 18 - Compliance and amendment of orders - The appellant filed an application seeking amendment of the memo of appeal against closure orders, stating that statutory remedies were available while emphasizing on the need for livelihood of 600 employees. The Tribunal permitted the amendment to challenge the second order dated 21.09.2024, while dismissing the challenge to the first order citing redundancy. (Paras 2, 3, 7)
(B) Appeal - Limitation - Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to limitation periods for challenging closure orders under the statutory framework, while allowing withdrawal from challenge to a prior order post expiry. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged closure orders against its plant for alleged violations of waste management rules, impacting the employment of 600 staff members. The High Court directed that statutory remedies must be pursued.
Findings of Court:
Application for amendment of the appeal was allowed, enabling the applicant to incorporate new developments and the appeal on the later closure order was to be prioritized.
Issues: Key issue revolves around the nature of closure orders and rights to amend challenges against them in light of emerging facts and High Court directives.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal allowed amendment of the appeal memo permitting challenge on the recent order based on fairness and statutory rights while highlighting adherence to limitation in appeals.
Result: Application for amendment allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of closure orders and implications on employment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. amendments requested to bring new facts into the appeal. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. contentions on limits of challenges against closure orders. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. tribunal's rationale for allowing amendments. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. next steps and scheduling for hearing. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER
1. In compliance with our previous order dated 09.07.2025, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed before us a copy of the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.4407 of 2025 (M/s Shakti Plastic Industries Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.), wherein correction is made by the Hon’ble High Court in its earlier order dated 01.04.2025 (annexed at pages 27 and 28 of the paper-book) by directing that in place of “21.09.2024” recorded in second paragraph of its order dated.01.04.2025, the date shall be read as “21.09.2024”, which is the order passed by respondent No.1 - MPCB impugned before the Hon’ble High Court. The said order dated
11.07.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court is taken on record.
2. It is also recorded in that order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 01.04.2025 that the appellant – Factory/Plant, which was employing 600 employees, has been directed to close down in view of the violations in respect of Plastic Waste Management Rules , 2016. Against the impugned order, there is an efficacious statutory remedy of filing an Appeal under Section 18 of the National Green tribunal Act, 2010. Further it is recorded in that order that there is delay in filing the Appeal, which may take a long time to be heard and therefore, the petition has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court, as there is question of survival of 600 employees. It is further noted in that order that the remedy for the petitioner is to file statutory Appeal as provided by the National Green Tribunal Act , 2010 and that there is always an opportunity open to the petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay setting out the reasons for delay to b e recorded. Therefore, it is directed that if any such application is filed, the same may be duly considered and decided by this Tribunal in accordance with law and that nothing has been expressed on merits of the matter by the Hon’ble High Court. Further it is recorded that hearing of the Appeal be expedited as it is the question of livelihood of 600 workers who are working in the Plant.
3. The appellant has moved an application being I.A. No.210 of 2025 (WZ) for amendment in the memo of Appeal with the prayer that initially an Appeal had been filed by the appellant challenging the validity of two different dates i.e. 18.06.2024 and 11.09.2024 on the grounds mentioned therein. However, the record of this Tribunal would show that a categorical statement has been made before this Tribunal on 09.07.2025, whereby it has been mentioned that as far as the first order is concerned, the same has become redundant for the reasons that the period provided therein has already expired.
4. Further it is mentioned in this application (I.A. No.210/2025) that the period of one year has already expired and the second order which is under challenge does not have any effect on barring of the first order and accordingly, upon expiry of the period of one year, the applicant is entitled to start their unit, which has not been permitted by respondent No.1 – MPCB. The applicant has moved I.A. No.204 of 2025 (WZ) separately, seeking necessary reliefs accordingly. Further it is mentioned that the applicant is not challenging the first order dated 18.06.2024, which is appearing in the present appeal and hence, the same is required to be deleted and further developments, which are in the nature of respondent No.1 – MPCB not permitting the appellant to start its business, despite expiry of one year, are required to be incorporated in the memo of appeal.
5. Against this I.A. No.210/2025, respondent No.1 – MPCB has filed their obje
