The Bombay High Court on Thursday set aside the closure order passed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) against a section of Baramati Agro Ltd, a firm run by Sharad Pawar-led NCP’s MLA Rohit Pawar.
A division bench led by Justice Nitin Jamdar set aside the MPCB’s order, deeming it “disproportionate” and observing that it had been passed hastily. The bench asked the MPCB to re-examine the matter based on the show-cause notice originally issued to the company.
The MPCB had issued a closure order notice on September 27, mandating the shutdown of part of Baramati Agro Ltd within 72 hours. The company challenged this notice in the high court.
In an earlier ad-interim order this month, the bench had directed the MPCB not to enforce the closure notice.
The company, represented by advocate Akshay Shinde, alleged in its plea that the order had been issued “due to political influence and considering the present political situation to pressurize the company’s director, Rohit Pawar, who is also a member of the legislative assembly of Maharashtra.” Rohit Pawar, Sharad Pawar’s grand-nephew, serves as the CEO of Baramati Agro Ltd and represents the Karjat-Jamkhed assembly constituency in Ahmednagar district.
Baramati Agro operates in various sectors, including animal and poultry feed manufacturing, sugar and ethanol manufacturing, co-generation of power, agri-commodity trading, fruits and vegetables, and dairy products.
The petition asserted that the company had obtained the necessary permissions over time to operate the unit and had been granted Environmental Clearance in 2022.
The MPCB contended that during a routine inspection of the Pune-based unit, certain irregularities were discovered. In September, the MPCB issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner company, which received a response, and a personal hearing was also conducted. However, the plea claimed that the MPCB officials failed to consider any explanations, clarifications, or evidence provided by the petitioner company and issued an order on September 27, mandating the closure of the unit’s manufacturing activities within 72 hours. The petition argued that the MPCB’s order was arbitrary, illegal, unlawful, and discriminatory.
It further contended that the order violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights to engage in business or trade and that the directive to close the unit was excessively harsh and disproportionate. The petition stated that the unit had been in operation since 2007-2008 and had not committed any environmental violations during that time. It also pointed out that the unit ordered to close was situated within the same premises as the company’s sugar factory, and the supply of water and electricity was interconnected. Closing this unit would disrupt the supply of electricity and water to the sugar factory, causing significant harm and loss.
The MPCB maintained that the closure order was issued due to severe environmental violations and the firm’s environmental damage.
The MPCB refuted the allegation that the order was preconceived and motivated, claiming it was “an allegation made out of desperation.” It emphasized that the action was taken promptly considering the serious violations and suggested that the company could comply with the norms and return to the board.
