Bombay High Court · 2025-12-24
GREEN GENE ENVIRO PROTECTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
- Citation / case number
- WP/2885/2025
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Petitioner
- GREEN GENE ENVIRO PROTECTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED
- Respondent
- THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
Judgment text excerpt
1 Panchal WP-2885-25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2885 OF 2025 Green Gene Enviro Protection BASAVRAJ And Infrastructure Limited .. Petitioner GURAPPA PATIL Vs. Digitally signed by The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents BASAVRAJ GURAPPA PATIL ... Date: 2025.12.25 09:55:54 +0530 Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Akanksha Aggrawal i/by Abhishek Mehta a/w Mr. Gaurav Raj Shrawat & Mr. Tushar Khatri, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. P. H. Kantharia, GP a/w Mr. Vishal Thadani, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Jayprakash Sen, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Vishwanath Patil, Ms. Nidhi Chauhan, Advocates for the Respondent No.2-MPCB. Mr. Prashant Chavan, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Komal Jadhav & Mr. Meet Vora i/by Navdeep Vora & Associates, Advocates for the Respondent No.3. Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Shyam Dewani, Mr. Sumit Khanna & Mr. Chirag Chanani i/by Dewani Associates, Advocates for the Respondent No.4. ... CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. RESERVED ON : 19th DECEMBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 24th DECEMBER 2025 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ : The Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter referred as the “petitioner-company”) is aggrieved by the amendment in Circular bearing No.MPCG/RO(BMW)/Circular/B-92 dated 15th February, 2024. It has challenged the consequential change in its Consent to Operate (in short, “CTO”) issued on 12th June, 2025. The petitioner-company states that it is directly impacted by the insertion of clause 19 in the CTO dated 12th June 2 Panchal WP-2885-25 2025 by which the area of its operation has been restricted and reduced to almost negligible. According to the petitioner-company, the action