MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has upheld the closure directions against a suburban mall for not obtaining environmental clearance, noting that operating such an establishment raises the “seriousness of the ecological issue”. The petitioner company, Grauer and Weil (India) Limited, considers itself above the law and has shown scant regard for environmental concerns, a division bench of Justices M S Sonak and Jitendra Jain said in its order on Wednesday.
It further said the petitioner company has taken law into its own hands and proceeded with construction of the mall without obtaining any environmental clearance, hence it is only proper that the closure directions are implemented immediately.
“The contention that the petitioner has applied for clearance under some amnesty scheme certainly does not entitle it to reap commercial profits at the cost of environmental clearances,” the bench said.
It directed the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) to immediately enforce the closure directions.
The HC dismissed the petition filed by Grauer and Weil (India) Limited, which operates the mall in Kandivali area here, challenging the closure directions issued against it by the Maharashtra MPCB on March 5.
No case is made out to interfere with the closure order, the court said, adding that relief can be granted only to promote justice and not perpetuate gross illegalities.
“Operating a mall that is constructed without obtaining any environmental clearance is extremely serious and operating such a mall without obtaining consent to establish/operate magnifies the seriousness of the ecological issue,” the HC said.
The petitioner company has taken law into its own hands and proceeded with construction of the mall without obtaining any environmental clearance, hence it is only proper that the closure directions are implemented immediately, the court added.
The bench directed the MPCB to immediately enforce its closure directions.
The plea claimed the principles of natural justice were not followed before passing of the orders and that there was no grave urgency for the closure order to be passed.
The high court, however, refused to accept this contention and said the authority cannot wait for some environmental disaster.
The petitioner company’s advocate, Ayush Agarwal, argued that even though the company may not have obtained environmental clearance for constructing the mall or may not have any consent to establish or operate the mall, still the closure directions should not have been issued as it applied for clearance in 2016 under some amnesty scheme.
This application was still pending before the authority concerned, he told the court.
The bench noted that once the petitioner company has admitted to have constructed and operated the mall without the mandatory clearance, it fails to see how then it could now complain about any alleged violation of the principles of natural justice.
There was also no clarity on the application filed by the company under some amnesty scheme, it said.
“No amnesty scheme entitles establishment or operations without consent under the air and water pollution control legislation,” the HC said.
The pendency of an application under some amnesty scheme does not operate as deemed environmental clearance or entitle the lawbreaker to continue to break the law indefinitely, the court said.
