Disposed¶18

M/S Shakti Plastic Industries v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Principal Sec. Ministry of Pollution Control and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2025WP/4407/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed on ground of efficacious alternative remedy; closure order dated 21/9/2022 by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board under Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016; appeal lies under Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010; liberty to apply for condonation of delay; NGT to decide condonation and expeditious-hearing requests in accordance with law; livelihood of 600 workers noted; no merits observations; Bombay High Court, Coram Alok Aradhe CJ and M. S. Karnik J, dated 1st April 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to file the statutory Appeal under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 together with an Application for condonation of delay; no observations made on the merits. ¶18

M/S Shakti Plastic Industries vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Principal Sec. Ministry of Pollution Control and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with liberty to file the statutory Appeal under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 together with an Application for condonation of delay; no observations made on the merits.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether relief should be granted in writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 against the closure order, given the delay in filing such appeal and the question of survival of 600 employees.

¶13

Court's answer

Against the impugned closure order the efficacious statutory remedy available to the Petitioner is to file an Appeal under Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

It is open to the Petitioner to file an Application for condonation of delay setting out the reasons for the delay, and if so filed the National Green Tribunal shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law.

¶18

Key takeaways

With the said liberty, the Petition is disposed of, and the Court has made no observation on the merits of the contentions.ratio¶18
If a request for expeditious hearing of the Appeal is made to the Tribunal, having regard to the livelihood of 600 workers, the Tribunal shall consider the said request for expeditious hearing on merits.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Coram: Alok Aradhe, CJ. and M. S. Karnik, J.; decision dated 1st April 2025) disposed of Writ Petition No. 4407 of 2025 filed by M/s. Shakti Plastic Industries challenging the order dated 21/9/2022 passed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board directing closure of the Petitioner's Factory/Plant employing around 600 employees for alleged violations of the Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016. Holding that an efficacious statutory remedy of Appeal under Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 exists against the impugned order, the Court observed that it was always open to the Petitioner to file an Application for condonation of delay setting out the reasons for delay, which the National Green Tribunal shall consider and decide in accordance with law. With that liberty the Petition was disposed of, expressly without any observation on the merits. On the submission regarding livelihood of 600 workers, the Court noted that any request to the Tribunal for expeditious hearing of the Appeal would be considered by the Tribunal on merits.

¶1

15-WP-4407-25.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4407 OF 2025

¶4

M/s. Shakti Plastic Industries … Petitioner V/S. The State of Maharashtra And Ors. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP, Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P., Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent No.1.

¶7

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. AND M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶8

DATE : 1^st APRIL 2025

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Heard Mr. Saraogi, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶11

The order under challenge in this Petition is dated 21/9/2022 passed

¶12

by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. By the impugned order, the Factory/Plant of the Petitioner which was employing around 600 employees was directed to be closed down in view of alleged violations 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.

¶13

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as there is a delay in filing the Appeal and the appeal may take a long time to be heard, therefore the present petition, as it is question of survival of 600 employees.

¶14

As we have noticed above, the remedy for the Petitioner is to file

rsk

1/2

15-WP-4407-25.doc

statutory Appeal as provided by the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is always open for the Petitioner to file an Application for condonation of delay setting out the reasons for delay in filing such an Appeal. If the Application for condonation of delay is so filed, obviously the National Green Tribunal shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. With the liberty aforesaid, we dispose of the present Petition. It is made clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the contentions.

¶19

Mr. Saraogi submits that the hearing of the Appeal be expedited as it is the question of livelihood of 600 workers who are working in the Plant. Needless to mention that if a request is made to the Tribunal, obviously the Tribunal shall consider the said request for expeditious hearing on merits.

( M. S. KARNIK, J. )

( CHIEF JUSTICE )

rsk

2/2

M/S Shakti Plastic Industries v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Principal Sec. Ministry of Pollution Control and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shakti Plastic Industries v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Principal Sec. Ministry of Pollution Control and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Monarch Surveyours and Engineering Consultants Limited vs Union of India through the General Manager and 2 Ors.

Moni Vidyapith Gargoti through Director, P.B. Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through G.P. and Ors.

Pmp Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Bharat Petro Resources Ltd.

Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited

Shri. Vinod Babulal Sheth Vs Wallace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

F. a. Enterprises vs Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation and 2 Ors.