Partly allowed

Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Environment Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Nov 2018WP/13189/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, noting the availability of a statutory appeal before the National Green Tribunal under Sections 33-B and 14 respectively, observed that it is inappropriate to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to bypass such appeal. It dismissed the petition while directing status quo in the unit till November 28, 2018.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed keeping issues open; status quo of manufacturing unit maintained until November 28, 2018.

Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1/4 903wp13189.18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 13189 of 2018

¶4

Huhtamaki PPL Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra through the Environment Dept. & ors. ... Respondents

¶5

Mr.Venkatesh Dhond, Mr. Rahul Dwarkadas, Mr.Joran Diwan for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr.P.P.Kakade, AGP for respondents 1 & 3. Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh for respondent no.2.

¶7

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, C.J. & M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶8

22nd November, 2018.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

The petitioner prays for following substantive relief:-

¶11

“ (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Notice and after considering the legality and validity thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the same.”

¶12

2/4 903wp13189.18.doc

¶13

The petitioner challenges the order dated 20^th November, 2018 passed by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (Exhibit A to the petition). The said order is passed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

¶14

The Counsel appearing for respondents raised preliminary objection to maintainability of this petition and submits that alternate remedy of statutory appeal against the order is available before the National Green Tribunal. The provisions of Section 33-B of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 refer to Appeal to National Green Tribunal. Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 refers to settlement of disputes by Tribunal. We may refer to observations of the Apex Court in the case of Cicily Kallarackal

¶15

vs. Vehicle Factory (2012) 8 SCC 524 . In Paragraph-4 it is observed as under:-

¶16

3/4 903wp13189.18.doc

¶17

“4. Despite this, we cannot help but state in absolute terms that it is not appropriate for the High Courts to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the Commission, as a statutory appeal is provided and lies to this Court under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Once the legislature has provided for a statutory appeal to the higher court, it cannot be proper exercise of jurisdiction to permit the parties to by pass the statutory appeal to such higher court and entertain petitions in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even in the present case, the High Court has not exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law. The case is one of the improper exercise of jurisdiction. It is not expected of us to deal with this issue at any greater length as we are dismissing this petition on other grounds.”

¶18

4. At this stage the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

¶19

petitioners submits that around 250 employees are working with the petitioners. In case the manufacturing unit is closed down then it may cause severe hardship to the petitioners and its employees. The Counsel, therefore, prays for breathing time to resort to alternate remedy as permissible in law.

¶20

4/4 903wp13189.18.doc

¶21

Perused the record placed before us and the provisions of the

¶22

Statute as referred above. Considered the submissions advanced.

¶23

In the facts we are of the view that the petitioners has alternate statutory remedy before the National Green Tribunal. The petitioners may resort to such a remedy.

¶24

Till 28^th November, 2018, we direct that status-quo as on today

¶25

in respect of running of the petitioner's manufacturing unit shall be maintained.

¶26

Keeping all issues on merits open, Writ Petition stands disposed

¶27

of.

¶28

M.S.KARNIK,J CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Environment Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Environment Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhukar Muralidhar Nazare Vs State of Maharashtra through Gp and Anr.

Shri. Sachin Tanaji Jadhav Vs M/S. P.S.K. Infrastructure and Projects Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Arif Nawaz Mohammad Mustafa Iraqi Vs Thane Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Mr. R. D Alias Ram Dadoba Patil Vs State Election Commission and Ors.

Mr. Dharmaraj Balbhim Malgonde and Ors. Vs Government of Maharashtra through the Secretary (Road) P.W.D. and Ors.

Mr. Sapan Shrivastava and Anr. Vs Collector Thane and Ors.