Court rules that closure under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 was lawful despite petitioner's claims of natural justice violation; emphasizes strict compliance with pollution control norms
Indore, September 28, 2026 - The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench) today dismissed the writ petition filed by Mudra Steel Industries Private Limited challenging the closure order issued by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) for operating without a valid Consent to Operate and failing to install and operate mandatory pollution control equipment. The court upheld the legality and validity of the Board's decision under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
Mudra Steel Industries, engaged in manufacturing TMT steel bars at Pithampur, District Dhar, was initially granted Consent to Operate on April 21, 2025, subject to the mandatory condition of installing a "Dog House Type" fumes extraction system within six months. The petitioner admitted failure to comply with this condition by the stipulated deadline of October 21, 2025. Consequently, the original consent expired on March 31, 2026.
The petitioner applied for renewal before expiry but was rejected on April 29, 2026, due to non-compliance with pollution control requirements. Following this, the MPPCB issued a closure order under Section 31-A on May 8, 2026, and disconnected electricity supply. Mudra Steel sought temporary relief, submitting a bank guarantee and was allowed limited time to upgrade its pollution control system. However, a surprise inspection by a Collector-constituted committee on August 12, 2026, revealed that the pollution control devices were installed but non-functional, with suction pipe joints open and machines switched off.
Based on these findings, the Board encashed the bank guarantee and issued a fresh closure order on August 27, 2026, followed by rejection of the petitioner's fresh consent application on September 11, 2026. Mudra Steel challenged these orders before the High Court, alleging violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction of the Chairman issuing the closure order, and ignoring a favorable inspection report dated August 19, 2026.
The High Court rejected these contentions, ruling that once the consent expired, the petitioner had no legal right to continue operations, and therefore, no enforceable right was infringed by the absence of a show-cause notice prior to closure. The court emphasized that environmental laws require swift action to prevent pollution and that lengthy notices to illegally operating units would defeat this purpose. The court also held that the Chairman of the Board was empowered to take emergency measures to stop pollution, subject to later approval by the full Board.
On the technical dispute between two inspection reports, the court relied on the Collector's Committee report showing non-operation of pollution control equipment and held that the court cannot substitute its opinion for that of expert bodies. The petitioner's failure to comply with mandatory conditions was held to justify the closure and rejection of consent.
The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh consent application only after full compliance with pollution control norms. The court directed the Board to consider such application strictly in accordance with law.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's firm stance on enforcing environmental compliance and the limited scope of judicial interference in technical matters concerning pollution control.
Bottom Line:
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Closure of industrial unit for operating without valid Consent to Operate and for failure to install and operate mandatory pollution control system - When factory continued operations after expiry of consent and violated consent conditions, closure order under Section 31-A and rejection of renewal/fresh consent were held valid - In such circumstances, plea of violation of natural justice was rejected and writ petition was not entertained despite challenge to jurisdiction and availability of alternate remedy.
Statutory provision(s):
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 Sections 21(4), 31, 31A; Constitution of India Article 226
