Bombay High Court continued the interim relief to Sharad Pawar group NCP MLA Rohit Pawar on Friday and hence allowed him to continue operation of his firm Baramati Agro Ltd till October 13.
The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) earlier issued a notice on September 27 directing closure of part of the Baramati Agro Ltd, which is controlled by Rohit Pawar, within 72 hours, that was to be early hours on October 1.
Rohit Pawar approached the High Court challenging the notice issued by the MPCB, stating that it had been issued due to “political influence and considering the present political situation.
“The Impugned Order has been passed owing to political influence and considering the present political situation to pressurize the director of the firm Rohit Pawar who is also MLA,” the plea said.
.jpg)
The plea was mentioned earlier on Sept 29 before a division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Manjusha Deshpande which kept the matter for hearing on October and in the meanwhile extended the direction in MPCB notice till then.
They approached the HC through advocate Akshay Shinde being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Closure order dated September 27 issued by regional office of MPCB under provisions of Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) and Air (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act.
Argument against MPCB order
It contended that the MPCB had passed the order without application of mind to the material on record and applicable law. It argued that the order was passed “without giving any satisfactory, independent reasoning and analysis in support of them”.
Stating that the MPCB’s order is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution on India, the plea contends that it deprives the petitioner’s fundamental right to carry out business/trade by directing the closure of the said unit, which is an extremely stringent and disproportionate action.
The MPCB regional officer has failed to consider the Water and Air Act in their true spirit and went on to impose a stringent penalty of closure of the unit, without scientifically assessing whether there was any actual damage and/or harm to the environment due to the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, the plea contends.
