Bombay HC Upholds Closure of Kandivali’s Growel’s 101 Mall for Environmental Violations | File Photo
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has upheld the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board’s (MPCB) closure directions against Growel’s 101 Mall in Kandivali for operating without obtaining environmental clearance. The court termed the situation as “extremely serious” and directed immediate enforcement of the closure order.
A division bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain dismissed a petition filed by Grauer and Weil (India) Limited, which operates the mall, challenging the MPCB’s March 5 closure order. The court made it clear that no interference was warranted, emphasising that judicial relief cannot be granted to “perpetuate gross illegalities.”
“Operating a mall that is constructed without obtaining any environmental clearance is extremely serious, and operating such a mall without obtaining consent to establish/operate magnifies the seriousness of the ecological issue,” the court observed on Wednesday. The order copy was made available on Thursday.
The judges noted that the petitioner company had disregarded legal requirements and proceeded with the mall’s construction without the necessary clearances.
“Since there is no dispute whatsoever that the Petitioner has taken the law into his own hands and proceeded with the construction of a mall without obtaining any environmental clearance, it is only proper that the closure directions are implemented immediately,” the court said.
The company argued that it had applied for environmental clearance in 2016 under an amnesty scheme and that the application was still pending. However, the court found no merit in this defense, pointing out that there was no clarity on the status of the application.
“No amnesty scheme entitles establishment or operations without consent under the Air and Water pollution control legislation,” the court ruled, adding that the petitioner had shown “scant regard for environmental concerns.”
The petitioner’s advocate, Ayush Agarwal, contended that the closure order was issued without following the principles of natural justice and that there was no grave urgency warranting such action. The court rejected this argument, stating that the MPCB could not wait for an environmental disaster before acting.
The bench further emphasized that the mere filing of an application under an amnesty scheme does not grant the petitioner the right to continue commercial operations in violation of environmental laws. “The contention that the petitioner has applied for clearance under some amnesty scheme certainly does not entitle it to reap commercial profits at the cost of environmental clearances,” it said.
The court made it clear that its writ jurisdiction could not be used to shield the petitioner’s unlawful conduct. “This Court’s extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary jurisdiction is to promote justice and not perpetuate such gross illegalities,” the bench observed.
It further added: “If justice is the byproduct of even a flawed exercise of authority by MPCB [which, in this instance, it is not], the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised to obliterate justice and establish environmental injustice.”
Noting that the petitioner had alternate remedies under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the court questioned why these had not been pursued. Despite entertaining the petition at the insistence of the petitioner, the bench concluded that no case had been made out to interfere with the closure order.
