The Bombay High Court has struck down a closure order issued by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) against a ready-mix concrete plant in Thane, ruling that the action was improperly influenced by Maharashtra Transport Minister Pratap Sarnaik and carried out in violation of natural justice.
A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad held that the MPCB’s directive dated October 8, 2025, was not the result of an independent regulatory assessment but was instead driven by Sarnaik’s complaint of September 9. The judges noted that the timing and contents of the closure communication made it “quite clear” that the MPCB’s Regional Officer had acted at the minister’s instance.
Raj Transit Infra Private Limited, which operates the concrete plant, had challenged the closure order, arguing that the proceedings were biased and procedurally flawed. The court observed that while the MPCB had initially issued a communication on July 2, that document made no reference to Sarnaik’s complaint. The minister’s letter surfaced only in the final October 8 order, raising doubts about impartiality and suggesting external influence on what was supposed to be a quasi-judicial regulatory process.
The bench held that the October 8 directive amounted to a quasi-judicial decision that adversely affected the company’s right to conduct business. Because it was tainted by external pressure and not supported by an unbiased evaluation, the court found the action “vitiated” and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the judges stressed that statutory authorities must exercise their own judgment and cannot act merely on recommendations or pressure from external sources.
Although the High Court cancelled the closure order, it did not prevent the MPCB from taking regulatory action in the future. Instead, it permitted the board to conduct a fresh and independent inspection of the plant. If deficiencies are found, the MPCB may issue a show-cause notice and give the company a fair opportunity to respond and rectify any shortcomings.
The ruling nullifies the earlier action but ensures that environmental compliance issues, if any, can still be addressed—this time through a lawful and unbiased process.
