Bombay High Court
SONVARSHA POULTRY FARM THR. ITS OWNERversusSUB REGIONAL OFFICE MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SANGLI AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to pursue the statutory appeal against the refusal of consent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonvarsha Poultry Farm, challenged the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board's refusal to grant consent to operate its poultry farm, an order dated 5 April 2024, and earlier closure directions issued on 22 February 2024 under the Water Act, Air Act and Hazardous Waste Rules. The petitioner sought continuation of interim protection and argued that the amendment allowing the challenge should be entertained by the High Court. The Court held that because a specific statutory remedy of appeal exists against the refusal of consent, it would not entertain the writ petition and would not decide on the grant of consent, leaving the matter to the expert authority. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue the appeal before the designated appellate authority and noted that the appellate authority should consider the pendency of these proceedings. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, with the Court emphasizing reliance on the statutory appeal process.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition challenging the refusal of consent to operate when a statutory appeal remedy is available under the Water and Air Acts.
- Whether interim protection granted in the earlier petition should continue pending the statutory appeal.
Legislation cited
- Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 — s. 31A
- Hazardous Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008
- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 — s. 33A
Subjects
- environmental law
- pollution control
- consent to operate
- writ jurisdiction
- statutory appeal
- interim relief
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:8697-DB
10-WP-2834-2024(C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2834 OF 2024
Sonvarsha Poultry Farm ...Petitioner
Through Its owner Sachin Abaso Gaikwad
Versus
Sub Regional Office Maharashtra Pollution Control ...Respondents
Board Sangli And Others
——————
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra Jagtap, for Respondent No.1 – MPCB.
Mr. Laxman Kalel for the Respondent No.4.
Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar, AGP for the Respondent No.3-State.
——————
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026.
P. C. :
1. By way of amendment, the refusal to consent to operate dated 5 th
April, 2024 is also challenged before this Court. The order which was
initially challenged was a communication dated 22 nd February, 2024, by
which the closure directions were issued under Section 33A of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, (“Water Act”)
and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981, (“Air Act”) and under the Hazardous Waste (Management and
Jamadar-SL 1 of 3
10-WP-2834-2024(C).doc
Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. Subsequent to the order of
closure, the Petitioner's consent to operate itself has been refused, as
against which there is a remedy of appeal under the provisions of the
Water Act and Air Act.
2. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is
that leave was granted to amend the petition to challenge the order
dated 5th April, 2024, and therefore, the challenge should be considered
by this Court. As there is a remedy of appeal provided under the statute
against the refusal of consent to operate, we are not inclined to
exercise writ jurisdiction to consider whether the consent to operate
should be granted to the Petitioner or not. The issue is best left to the
experts in the field in order to consider whether the consent to operate
the Poultry Farm can be granted and the conditions on which such
consent should be granted. Learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner would further submit that the interim protection which was
granted should be continued.
3. We find that initially the order was for closure, which indicates
that, at that time the consent to establish was granted. Subsequently,
as the consent to operate itself is refused, the Petitioner cannot be
permitted to carry on the activity without the consent from the
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. Hence, we are not inclined to
permit the operation of the Poultry Farm without an appropriate
Jamadar-SL 2 of 3
10-WP-2834-2024(C).doc
consent from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, as it is an
environmental/pollution issue.
4. It is open for the Petitioner to challenge the consent to operate
before the appellate authority.
5. The petition is disposed of by relegating the Petitioner to the
remedy of appeal.
6. As the Petition was pending for consideration before this Court,
the appellate authority, while considering the appeal against refusal of
consent to operate, to take into consideration the pendency of the
proceedings before this Court.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
Jamadar-SL 3 of 3
Checking your session…