In a relief to Baramati Agro Ltd, a firm controlled by NCP MLA Rohit Pawar as its CEO, the Bombay High Court on Thursday set aside the closure order issued by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board for its unit in Pune and asked the board to decide the matter afresh. A bench of Justices Nitin M Jamdar and Manjusha A Deshpande held that the board, while issuing the closure order, had acted in haste and overlooked important factors including the firm’s reply to the showcause notice, the enforcement policy and the principle of proportionality. The court said the board had to consider aspects such as the extent of violations, degree of environmental threats, the option of setting aside compliance timelines and the possibility of alternative deterrent measures. “Neither the impugned order nor the reply affidavit shows that a considered decision-making process was adopted before taking the decision. Therefore, it is necessary to remand this matter to the Board for decision afresh after taking into account the observations made in this judgment and after evaluation of the remedial actions taken by the petitioner,” the bench said. Rohit Pawar, the MLA from the Sharad Pawar-led party, claimed the board’s decision was arbitrarily taken under political influence. The board’s order, issued on September 27 and served the next day, sought closure of the unit within 72 hours. On September 29, the bench extended the direction in the board’s order and continued it from time to time. The board, however, submitted that the sugar factory had violated norms and continued to cause environmental damage. Granting temporary relief, the bench had extended the effect of the closure order till Thursday. The court observed that “several errors crept in the impugned order” primarily because of the “expeditiousness of the decision-making process and the failure to duly consider the petitioner’s reply to the showcause notice”. It observed the “stringent” order was “primarily based on a single inspection report and the breaches” and that the board failed to establish the firm had a history of “recalcitrance”. “The petitioner is stated to have undertaken several corrective measures that would require scrutiny by the board. According to us, the proper course of action is to set aside the impugned order restoring the proceeding from the stage of the showcause notice dated September 4, 2023, and direct the board to take a fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and setting up a timetable for the disposal of the said proceeding. In the facts and circumstances, the board should pass a reasoned order,” the bench held.
