Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

4. Conditions under Water (P&CP), 1974 Act for discharge of effluent: Sr No Description Permitted (in CMD) Standards to Disposal Path

1. Trade effluent 15 As per Schedule-I Treated effluent shall be 100% recycled to achieve zero liquid discharge.

2. Domestic effluent 13 As per Schedule-I On land for gardening.

5. Conditions under Air (P & CP) Act, 1981 for air emissions: Sr. No. Stack No. Description of stack/source Number of Stack Standards to be achieve 1 S-1 Sigma Machine 1 As per Schedule-II 2 S-2 Tank Farm Area 1 As per Schedule-II 3 S-3 Solid HW Storage Shed 1 As per Schedule-II 4 S-4 Dryer (Process Stack) 1 As per Schedule-II 5 S-5 DG Set (500 KVA) 1 As per Schedule-II 6 S-6 DG Set (62.[5] KVA) 1 As per Schedule-II

6. Non-Hazardous Wastes: Sr No Type of Waste Quantity UoM Treatment Disposal 1 STP Sludge 2 Kg/Day Drying Use as manure for plantation

7. Conditions under Hazardous & Other Wastes (M & TM) Rules 2016 for Collection, Segregation, Storage, Transporation, Treatment and Disposal of hazardous waste: Sr No Category No./Type Quantity UoM Treatment Disposal 1 26.[1] Process Waste sludge/residues containing acid, toxic metals, organic compounds 2000 Kg/M --- Reuse in Process 2 33.[1] Empty barrels/ containers/liners contaminated with hazardous chemicals/wastes 1000 No/M --- Sale to Authorized Recycler 3 35.[3] Chemical sludge from waste water treatment

8. The Board reserves the right to review, amend, suspend, revoke this consent and the same shall be binding on the industry.

9. This consent should not be construed as exemption from obtaining necessary NOC/permission from any other Government authorities.

10. Project Proponent shall provide online monitoring system for minitoring BOD & SS parameters to STP outlet.

11. Project Proponent shall strictly follow guideline for pre-processing and co-processing of Hazardous & Other Wastes in Cement Plants published by Central Pollution Control Board as per H & OW (M & TBM) Rules, 2016.

12. This consent is issued pursuant to the decision of the Second Meeting of the Consent Committee of the Board held on 08/05/2025.

13. Industry shall apply for renewal of this Consent 60 days prior to the validity of this consent.

14. The industry shall obtain permission from Directorate of Industrial Safety & Health (DISH).

15. Project Proponent shall sent details of pre-processing waste disposal on monthly basis to Regional Officer & Sub-Regional Officer regularly.

16. Project Proponent shall accept the Hazardous Waste only from those indutries having disposal path mentioned in their consent for preprocessing only.

17. The industry shall comply with the conditions stipulated in the Authorization granted by the Board vide No.MPCB/RO(BMW)/HSMD/AUTH/23/H & OW/87 dated 18/10/2023 valid upto 30/09/2028.

18. This consent is issued with an overriding effect on the existing Consent to Operate granted by the Board vide No. Format 1.0/CC/UAN No. MPCB-CONSENT-0000154554/CO/2306001944 dated 26/06/2023 valid up to 31/05/2028.

19. The industry shall collect/accept the Hazardous Waste from the industries located in the area other than the area allotted to M/s Maharashtra Enviro Power Limited (M/s Shaktikumar M. Sancheti Limited), Ranjangaon Pune and Butibori, Nagpur until the agreement of MEPL, SMS with MIDC and MPC is in to force. This consent is issued on the basis of information/documents submitted by the Applicant/Project Proponent, if it has been observed that the information submitted by the Applicant/Project Proponent is false, misleading or fraudulent, the Board reserves its right to revoke the consent & further legal action will be initiated against the Applicant/Project Proponent.”

6. Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-company submitted that the action of the MPCB to unilaterally amend the CTO granted to the petitioner-company is in gross violation of the rules of natural justice. The learned senior counsel referred to “Director General of Foreign Trade & Anr.”1 to submit that certain rights have accrued in favour of the petitioner-

1. Director General of Foreign Trade & Anr. v. M/s Kanak Exports & Anr. (2016) 2 SCC 226 company and any variation in the CTO issued to it without hearing the petitioner-company is liable for interference on the ground of violations of natural justice. The conditions imposed under Clause 19 of the CTO dated 12th June 2025 is unreasonable restriction imposed on the right of the petitioner-company to carry on trade or business throughout the country. The incorporation of Clause 19 in the CTO issued to the petitioner-company is contrary to the Rules which envisages trans-boundary operations. Moreover, the Tripartite Agreement has lost its force after coming into force of the Rules and, more than that, the CTE and CTO granted to the respondent no.4 for pre-processing/co-processing of hazardous waste were not contemplated under the Tripartite Agreement.

7. Per contra, Mr. Jayprakash Sen, the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2-MPCB submitted that the Amended Circular has been issued under Rule 16 of the Hazardous And Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (in short, “HWM Rules)” and under the general power of superintendence. The learned senior counsel contended that there is no challenge to the Tripartite Agreement dated 13th August 2004 and those agreements are subsisting and binding on the MPCB and MIDC. Moreover, the petitioner-company has adequate avenues to collect the hazardous waste for pre-processing from as many as 13 districts. Mr. M. G. Bhangde, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 referred to Clause 11 of the Tripartite Agreement and submitted that the said agreement shall remain enforceable for 20 years from the commencement of operations by the respondent no.4 or till the completion of full closure of the site. It is further submitted that the MPCB is under a contractual obligation to adhere to the terms and conditions under the Tripartite Agreement and it could not have permitted the petitioner-company to collect hazardous waste from the area allocated to the respondent no.4. Clause 11 of the Tripartite Agreement provided as under:

11.

TERM OF THE AGREEMENT A) Unless otherwise provided for, the Active Term of the Agreement shall commence on the Agreement Date and shall, continue for a period of 20 years from the Commencement of Operations or till completion of full Closure of the site whichever is later.”

8. Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, the learned senior counsel responded to the objection taken by the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner-company has alternate remedy under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. With reference to the decisions in “Whirlpool Corporation”2 and “Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr.”3, the learned senior counsel contended that the challenge to the amended circular cannot be adjudicated by the statutory authority and the writ petition is maintainable as the amended circular is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The statutory clearances issued to the petitioner-company and the establishment of its CHWTSDF shall give rise to legitimate expectation as the petitioner-company acted on the basis of the statutory permissions granted to it and changed its position.

9. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is well accepted in common law jurisdictions and its nature, scope and extent are well crystallized and forms part of precedent law in India. In “Allegheny College”4, Cordozo, J. observed as follows:- “14.... There promissory estoppel has been applied against the Government where the interest of justice, morality and common fairness clearly dictated such a course. We shall refer to these cases when we discuss the applicability of the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the Government. Suffice it to state for the present that the doctrine of promissory estoppel has been taken much further in the United States than in English and Commonwealth jurisdictions and in some States at least, it has been used to reduce, if not to destroy, the prestige of consideration as an essential of valid

2. Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 1

3. Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 107

4. Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank 246 NY 369: 57 ALR 980 (1927) contract. Vide Spencer Bower and Turner's Estoppel by a Representation (2d) p. 358There are also numerous cases where the doctrine of promissory estoppel has been applied against the government”.

10. In “M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.”5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the promise made by a party to another party through his words or conduct which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in future and knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and, in fact, so acted upon by the other party shall be binding on the party making the promise. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the party making such a promise would not be entitled not to honor his promise, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings between the parties.

11. This is well settled that the doctrine of promissory estoppel may be applied against the government and its instrumentality where it is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. This doctrine cannot be invoked to compel the government or even a private party to perform something which is prohibited by law, but then, there is nothing on record or even argued before us that the CTO granted to the petitioner-company did not entitle it in law to carry its operations throughout Maharashtra or even beyond its boundaries. In “Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd.”6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if a party has changed or altered his position by relying on the assurance or representation made by the other party, there is no need to prove any damage, detriment or prejudice to the party asserting the estoppel. There is a series of judgments laying down the true import and expanse of the doctrine of promissory estoppel which is sometimes called equitable estoppel and we do not feel it necessary to catalogue all such judgments on the points.

5. M/s.Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1979) 2 SCC 409

6. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 86

12. The option of the petitioner-company to receive hazardous wastes from the industries located in the State of Maharashtra has been restricted under the Amended Circular. Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-company rightly submitted that the MPCB intends to create monopolistic situation in favour of the respondent no.4 inasmuch as the industries located in 15 zones are mandatorily required to supply their wastes to the CHWTSDF operated by the respondent no.4 for pre-processing/coprocessing. For setting up of pre-processing facility at Sangli, the petitioner-company obtained No Objection Certificate and Consent to Operate. The said CTE was re-validated on 26th December 2022 with two amendments dated 18th August 2018 and 22nd March 2021. The petitioner-company established its pre-processing facility with huge investment of Rs.77.21 crores with a permission for pre-processing hazardous wastes and other wastes approximately 2,75,000 MT per annum. The petitioner-company gives details of its total turn over and states that more than half of its turn over comes from the hazardous wastes received from the industries located in Ranjangaon and Butibori. The MPCB has no jurisdiction to curtail the business activities of the petitioner-company by restricting the area of its operation. After the amendment in CTE, the petitioner-company shall be left with just 10% of the geographical area in the State of Maharashtra and its area of operation has been restricted to Palghar, Thane, Mumbai Suburban, Mumbai City, Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg.

13. The MPCB cannot take refuge to the Tripartite Agreement to issue the Amended Circular incorporating a clause which has no relation whatsoever with the duty and obligation under the Rules. The Amended Circular dated 15th February 2024 has no sanctity in law and cannot be enforced qua the petitioner-company to curtail its rights to receive the hazardous wastes and other wastes for preprocessing/co-processing from the industries located in the State of Maharashtra. The impugned Circular is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and infringes the right of the petitioner-company under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

14. The HWM Rules are framed in exercise of the powers by the Central Government under sections 6, 8 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. These rules have been framed for the management of hazardous and other wastes as specified in the Schedules to the Rules. The expression “transboundary movement” has been defined to mean any movement of hazardous or other wastes from an area under the jurisdiction of one country to or through an area under the jurisdiction of another country or to or through an area not under the jurisdiction of any country, wherever at least two countries are involved in the movement of hazardous and other wastes. The occupier of any factory or premises is responsible for safe and environmentally sound management of hazardous and other wastes. There are other responsibilities of the occupier which are provided under Rule 4 of the HWM Rules. The Department of Industry in the State or any other government agency authorized in this regard by the State Government has been entrusted with the responsibility to ensure earmarking or allocation of industrial space or shed for recycling, pre-processing and other utilization of hazardous or other wastes in the existing or upcoming industrial park and industrial clusters. There are other responsibilities of the State Government such as preparation of integrated plan for effective implementation of the Rules, undertaking annual monitoring and ensuring safety and health of workers etc. which are indicated under Rule 5 of the HWM Rules. There is a requirement under Rule 6 that every occupier of the facility who is engaged in handling, generation, collection, storage, packaging, transportation etc. of the hazardous and other wastes shall obtain an authorization from the State Pollution Control Board by making an application under Form-1 which shall be accompanied with (i) consent to establish (ii) consent to operate and (iii) self certified compliance report in case of renewal of authorization.

15. Rules 4 and 5 of the HWM Rules are reproduced as under:- “4. Responsibilities of the occupier for management of hazardous and other wastes.- (1) For the management of hazardous and other wastes, an occupier shall follow the following steps, namely: (a) prevention; (b) minimization;

(c) reuse,

(d) recycling;

(e) recovery, utilisation including co-processing; (f) safe disposal. (2) The occupier shall be responsible for safe and environmentally sound management of hazardous and other wastes. (3) The hazardous and other wastes generated in the establishment of an occupier shall be sent or sold to an authorised actual user or shall be disposed of in an authorised disposal facility. (4) The hazardous and other wastes shall be transported from an occupier's establishment to an authorised actual user or to an authorised disposal facility in accordance with the provisions of these rules. (5) The occupier who intends to get its hazardous and other wastes treated and disposed of by the operator of a treatment, storage and disposal facility shall give to the operator of that facility, such specific information as may be needed for safe storage and disposal. (6) The occupier shall take all the steps while managing hazardous and other wastes to- (a) contain contaminants and prevent accidents and limit their consequences on human beings and the environment; and (b) provide persons working in the site with appropriate training, equipment and the information necessary to ensure their safety.

5. Responsibilities of State Government for environmentally sound management of hazardous and other wastes. - (1) Department of Industry in the State or any other government agency authorised in this regard by the State Government, to ensure earmarking or allocation of industrial space or shed for recycling, pre-processing and other utilisation of hazardous or other waste in the existing and upcoming industrial park, estate and industrial clusters; (2) Department of Labour in the State or any other government agency authorised in this regard by the State Government shall- (a) ensure recognition and registration of workers involved in recycling, pre-processing and other utilisation activities; (b) assist formation of groups of such workers to facilitate setting up such facilities;

(c) undertake industrial skill development activities for the workers involved in recycling, pre-processing and other utilisation;

(d) undertake annual monitoring and to ensure safety and health of workers involved in recycling, pre-processing and other utilisation. (3) Every State Government may prepare integrated plan for effective implementation of these provisions and to submit annual report to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, in the Central Government.”

16. The provisions under Rule 6 to grant authorization for managing hazardous and other wastes, the power to suspend or cancel authorization under Rule 7, the power to extend the period for storage of the hazardous and other wastes under proviso to Rule 8, the power to authorize utilization of the hazardous and other wastes under Rule 9, do not contemplate any power in the State Pollution Control Board to restrict the area of operation of the industry. The provisions under Chapter III captioned as “Import and export of hazardous and other wastes” visualized transboundary movement of hazardous and other wastes. Rule 16 contemplates the role of the State Pollution Control Board to monitor the setting up and operation of the common or captive treatment, storage and disposal facility. Such monitoring by the State Pollution Control Board is also guided by the technical guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board from time to time. Rule 16 of HWM Rules further provides that the operator of common facility or occupier of a captive facility shall be responsible for safe and environmentally sound operation of the facility. The operator shall maintain records of hazardous and other wastes handled by them in Form-3. It shall file annual return in Form-4 to the State Pollution Control Board on or before 30th day of June. The State Pollution Control Board shall monitor the setting up or operation of the captive treatment and storage and disposal facility. However, there is no indication under the HWM Rules that the State Pollution Control Board can restrict the area of operation of an occupier of captive facility or operator of a common facility.

17. The MPCB contends that under Clause 8 of the Tripartite Agreement, it has the obligation to ensure that the hazardous waste generated by the industries as per the consent issued by it are consigned to the TSDF facility and its decision shall be final in case of any variation in the quantum of waste generation. Furthermore, it is not supposed to encourage any other TSDF either inside or outside the MIDC area and it cannot issue consent to any other TSDF within the same catchment areas. Clause 11 of the Tripartite Agreement provides the term of the agreement. It is provided thereunder that the active term of the agreement date shall commence on the date of agreement and shall continue for a period of 20 years from the commencement of operation or till completion of full closure of the site whichever is later. According to the MPCB, the CTO issued in favor of the petitioner-company did not reflect the obligation of MPCB under the Tripartite Agreement dated 13th August 2004 and, therefore, the Amended Circular was issued on 15th February 2024. The MPCB refers to the CTO dated 13th November 2024 issued to M/s. Synergy Techno Ventures LLP which restricted the area of operation for that entity and the said industry was permitted to collect the hazardous waste from the industries located from the area other than the area allocated to MEPL. A similar restriction has been imposed to the petitioner-company under the amended CTO issued to it on 12th June 2025.

18. However, this is necessary to indicate that the MPCB did not produce all materials and information to the Court. In the course of the hearing, Mr. Jayprakash Sen, the learned senior counsel for the MPCB informed the Court that there are 12 other similar industries which are operating in the State of Maharashtra but their details etc. are not pleaded in the counter affidavit. It is not stated by the MPCB that the area of operation of the other industries were restricted even prior to issuance of the Amended Circular. This is also not indicated that all industries except the petitioner-company continue to route their hazardous wastes or other wastes for recycling through the facility set up by the respondent no.4 in all those years. Long back, the Privy Council observed in “Murugesam Pillai”7 that “a practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of onus of proof, and failing accordingly to furnish to the Courts the best material for its decision”.

19. The Circular dated 23rd August 2022 was merely a replica of the provisions under the Rules and nothing more. The said Circular was an innocuous publication which was intended to make aware the stakeholders their duty while carrying out operations under the Rules. It can be very well assumed that the Circular dated 23rd August 2022 was issued with a view to make the operating industries aware about the restrictions under the Rules. However, the Amended Circular dated 15th February 2024 is illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as it confines the area of operation for the petitionercompany and provides that the disposal of hazardous wastes for preprocessing/co-processing shall be routed through CHWTSDF located

7. Murugesam Pillai v. Manickavasaka Desika Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi & Ors. 1917 SCC OnLine PC 1 at Ranjangaon and Butibori. The Central Government in its wisdom did not provide a power in the State Pollution Control Board to issue guidelines. The MPCB is to act within four corners of the Rules. The field for issuing any Circular, guidelines etc. is occupied by the Central Government and the MPCB has no jurisdiction to issue a Circular contrary to the provisions under the Rules and to impede the free movement of trade and business. The Amended Circular is not issued to clarify the provisions under the Rules for the benefit of the stakeholders or to secure effective compliance with the provisions thereunder. A Circular could never be intended to be used as an instrument of circumvention and subversion of the provisions under the Rules. The amended Circular dated 15th February 2024 is not statutory in nature and it has no legal effect, sanctity or sanction.

20. For the aforesaid reasons, the Circular dated 15th February 2024 and Clause 19 in the CTO issued to the petitioner-company on 12th June 2025 are quashed.

21. Writ Petition No.2885 of 2025 is allowed in the aforesaid terms. [GAUTAM A. ANKHAD. J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]