In an interim relief for Sharad Pawar group NCP MLA Rohit Pawar, the Bombay High Court on Friday allowed him to continue operation of his firm Baramati Agro Ltd till Oct 6.
The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) had 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 would 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.
The plea was mentioned 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.
Show cause notice not issued
Also, the state pollution board has failed to consider the fact that the firm has started the said Unit since 2007-08 and since then there has not been even a single instance of any environmental violation. Also, the MPCB has not issued a show cause notice/direction to the petitioner giving an opportunity to put-forth its response.
The firm claimed that it had invested a huge amount of Rs 218.16 crore for purposes including expansion of distillery and the closure will cause damage to the firm.
The plea has sought quashing of the order, and pending hearing, it sought a stay on the effect of the MPCB order.
