M/S Shakti Plastic Industries v. The State Of Maharashtra Throu. The Principal Sec. Ministry Of Pollution Control And ORS

15-WP-4407-25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4407 OF 2025 M/s. Shakti Plastic Industries ... Petitioner V/S.

The State of Maharashtra And Ors.

... Respondents _______________________________________ Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi for the Petitioner.

Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP, Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P., Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent No.1.

_______________________________________ CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. AND M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : 1st APRIL 2025 P. C. :

1.

Heard Mr. Saraogi, learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2.

The order under challenge in this Petition is dated 21/9/2022 passed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. By the impugned order, the Factory/Plant of the Petitioner which was employing around 600 employees was directed to be closed down in view of alleged violations of Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016. Against the impugned order there is an efficacious statutory remedy of filing an Appeal under Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010.

3.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as there is a delay in filing the Appeal and the appeal may take a long time to be heard, therefore the present petition, as it is question of survival of 600 employees. 4.

As we have noticed above, the remedy for the Petitioner is to file rsk 1/2

15-WP-4407-25.doc statutory Appeal as provided by the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is always open for the Petitioner to file an Application for condonation of delay setting out the reasons for delay in filing such an Appeal. If the Application for condonation of delay is so filed, obviously the National Green Tribunal shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. With the liberty aforesaid, we dispose of the present Petition. It is made clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the contentions. 5.

Mr. Saraogi submits that the hearing of the Appeal be expedited as it is the question of livelihood of 600 workers who are working in the Plant. Needless to mention that if a request is made to the Tribunal, obviously the Tribunal shall consider the said request for expeditious hearing on merits. ( M. S. KARNIK, J. ) ( CHIEF JUSTICE ) rsk 2/2