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

Order

#1. The consent to operate is granted for a period up to 31/05/2028

#2. The capital Investment of the project is Rs.45.08 Crs. (As per C.A Certificate submitted by industry)

#3. Consent is valid for the manufacture of: Maximum Quantity UOM 160000 MT/A Product Sr No Products 1 2 3 Alternate fuel from Organiz Incinerable Hazardous Waste Alternate Fuel from Inorganiz Hazardous waste 55000 Alternate Fuel from Non-hazardous Waste 60000 MT/A MT/A

#4. Conditions under Water (P&CP), 1974 Act for discharge of effluent: Sr No

#1. Description Permitted (in CMD) Trade effluent 15 Standards to Disposal Path 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. Panchal WP-2885-25

#5. Conditions under Air (P & CP) Act, 1981 for air emissions: 7 Stack No. Sr. No. Description of stack/source Number of Stack Standards to be achieve 1 2 3 4 5 6 S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 Sigma Machine Tank Farm Area Solid HW Storage Shed Dryer (Process Stack) DG Set (500 KVA) DG Set (62.5 KVA) 1 1 1 1 1 1 As per Schedule-II As per Schedule-II As per Schedule-II As per Schedule-II As per Schedule-II As per Schedule-II

#6. Non-Hazardous Wastes: Type of Waste Quantity UoM Treatment Disposal Sr No 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: Category No./Type Quantity UoM Treatment Disposal Sr No 1 26.1 Process Waste 2000 Kg/M --- sludge/residues containing acid, toxic metals, organic compounds 2 33.1 Empty barrels/ containers/liners contaminated with hazardous chemicals/wastes 1000 No/M --- Reuse in Process Sale to Authorized Recycler 3 35.3 Chemical sludge from waste water treatment 4 --- Kg/ Day Reuse in Process

#9. The Board reserves the right to review, amend, suspend, revoke this consent and the same shall be binding on the industry. 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 Panchal WP-2885-25 8 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 pre- processing only.

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

#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 9 Panchal WP-2885-25 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 Panchal WP-2885-25 area allocated to the respondent no.4. Clause 11 of the Tripartite 10 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