Bombay HC Upholds MPCB’s Closure Order Against Growel’s 101 Mall in Kandivali Over Environmental Clearance Issue

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has upheld the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board’s (MPCB) order to shut down Growel's 101 Mall in Kandivali for operating without obtaining the required environmental clearance. The court termed the issue as "extremely serious" and directed immediate enforcement of the closure order.

The division bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain dismissed a petition filed by Grauer and Weil (India) Limited, which operates the mall, challenging the MPCB’s closure order issued on March 5. The court emphasized that the judicial relief cannot be granted to perpetuate illegalities and stated that the operation of a mall constructed without environmental clearance is a serious violation.

The court noted that the petitioner company had proceeded with the construction of the mall without the necessary legal clearances, thus disregarding environmental laws. “Since there is no dispute that the petitioner proceeded with the construction without obtaining environmental clearance, it is proper that the closure directions be implemented immediately,” the court observed.

The company argued that it had applied for environmental clearance under an amnesty scheme in 2016, but the court found this defense unconvincing, citing a lack of clarity on the status of the application. The court rejected the argument, stating that no amnesty scheme exempts a company from following pollution control regulations under the Air and Water Pollution Control laws.

The court also dismissed the petitioner’s contention that the closure order was issued without following the principles of natural justice, asserting that there was no need to wait for an environmental disaster before taking action.

“The filing of an application under the amnesty scheme does not entitle the petitioner to continue commercial operations in violation of environmental laws,” the court ruled. The judges also stated that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be used to protect unlawful actions and noted that alternative remedies were available under the Water and Air Pollution Control Acts, which had not been pursued.

The court’s decision ensures that the closure order against Growel’s 101 Mall will be enforced, setting a strong precedent for environmental accountability in commercial developments.