Bombay High Court

HUMBLE PLASTICS PVT. LTD. EARLIER KNOWN AS WALAMBIA PLASTICS PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 25 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, allowing the writ petition despite the existence of a statutory remedy.

Summary

Humble Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Walambia Plastics) challenged an order issued by an adjudicating authority that merely reproduced the show‑cause notice without considering the detailed response filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging violation of the principles of natural justice. The State of Maharashtra opposed, contending that the petitioner should first exhaust the statutory appeal available under the relevant law. The High Court held that the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of a statutory remedy because the adjudicating authority had failed to address the petitioner’s contentions. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration, directing a hearing on 3 September 2026. No merits were decided, and the petition was subsequently disposed of after granting the relief.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition can be entertained when a statutory appeal is available but not exhausted.
Whether an order that reproduces a show‑cause notice without considering the respondent’s reply violates the principles of natural justice.

Subjects

writ petition
natural justice
show cause notice
statutory remedy
administrative law
remand
set aside order

Judgment

                                                                                     5-wp 2820-26.doc
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA
KADAM                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA
KADAM                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 2820 OF 2026
Date: 2026.08.25
18:07:40 +0530
                      Humble Plastics Pvt. Ltd.                                    … Petitioner
                      Earlier known as Walambia Plastics Pvt. Ltd.
                               Versus
                      State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                  ... Respondents

                                               __________________________

                      Mr. Brijesh Pathak a/w. Mr. Dulraj Jain for the Petitioner.
                      Ms. Shruti D. Vyas, Addl GP a/w. Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for the
                      Respondent-State.
                                             __________________________

                                                        CORAM        : M. S. KARNIK AND
                                                                       SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
                                                        DATED        : 25th AUGUST, 2026.

                      P.C. :

                      1.       Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

                      2.       Learned AGP for the respondents opposed the petition.              It is

                      submitted that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious statutory remedy

                      and without exhausting the remedy, the petitioner has directly approached

                      this Court.

                      3.       In the facts of the present case and after having perused the relevant

                      material and impugned order, we are satisfied that this is a fit case for

                      entertaining the writ petition despite the availability of a statutory remedy

                      of appeal.

                      4.       A perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the observations

                       Amk                                                                    1/2
                                                          5-wp 2820-26.doc

made on the basis of which the show cause notice is adjudicated is a mere

reproduction of whatever was forming a part of the show cause notice.

Though the petitioner had filed a detailed response, none of the

contentions raised in reply to the show cause notice are adverted to or

considered by the adjudicating authority. For this reason, we are inclined

to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating

authority for a fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law

after considering the response of the petitioner.

5.     It is made clear that we have not observed anything on merits and

all contentions of the parties are kept open.

6.     The petitioner to appear before the adjudicating authority on 3 rd

September, 2026 at 11.00 a.m. where-after the adjudicating authority may

schedule the hearing as per its convenience. The adjudicating authority

may then pass an order as expeditiously as possible after hearing the

petitioner in accordance with law after complying with the principles of

natural justice. The impugned order is set aside.

7.     The petition is disposed of.



(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                                 (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




 Amk                                                               2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…