IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NEW

BOMBAY CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2023

DIST.: MUMBAI

IN THE MATTER OF
ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
COMPLAINT DATED 24.3.23
LODGED WITH
THE OFFICE OF THE MIRA
BHAYANDER MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, MIRA
ROAD EAST,THANE
AGAINST NOTICE
RECEIVED BY MPCB

AND

1
 IN THE MATTER OF
NOTICE DATED 23.4.23
RECEIVED FROM
THE MAHARASHTRA
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD AUTHORITY
AGAINST CAFÉ TO
REVOKE EC LICESNE

Mr. RAM MOHAN son of SHAM MOHAN )

Age: 54yrs, Occup: CAFÉ OWNER )
Indian Inhabitant, Hindu, )
Reg. No. RC2378B6 )
Having CAFÉ :BhukkAd )
70, Palli Hills,Mira Road,THANE -401107 )
Mobile No:+91 8844338812 )
EMAIL ID:thebhukkad@gmail.com )
…… PETITIONER
VERSUS

1. State of Maharashtra Pollution

Department )
(At the instance of the Senior Inspector of
MPCB Mira Road, )
Having office at: Navi Mumbai )
Navi Mumbai – 400703. )

…… RESPONDENT 1
2.MiraBhayander Municipal Corporation
Department )
Having Office: Mira Road )

2
 THANE – 401107 )
…… RESPONDENT 2

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR
DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO THE RESPONDENTS AND
QUASH ORDER DATED 23.04.23 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1.

To,
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court,

And His Companion Judges of the

Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE

APPLICANT ABOVE NAMED:

THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY

SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner is filing the present writ petition

under article 226 of the constitution of India Praying for

3
direction or order in the nature of Certiorari to the
respondents and quash order dated 23.04.23 passed by
respondent No. 1. The Petitioner contends that the order
passed by the respondent No. 1 was unlawful and
arbitrary. The Petitioner further contends that the order
was passed without hearing the Petitioner and was in
contravention of the provisions of law. The Petitioner
seeks a direction or order setting aside the order passed
by the respondent No. 1.

2. That, the Petitioner is a Law abiding Citizen of India

and residing the above address. The Petitioner has been
severely affected by the order passed by the respondent
No. 1. The Petitioner has suffered immense financial,
mental, and emotional losses on account of the order. The
Petitioner seeks justice and redressal of his grievances.

3. That the Petitioner runs a Coffee Shop Named the

BhukkAd for style of Sit and enjoy at 70, Palli Hills,Mira
Road,THANE -401107.

4. The petitioner submitted that on 02.11.2022, the

respondent-MPCB issued the ‘Consent to Establish’ in
favour of the petitioner-firm under Section 25/26 of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

4
and under Section 21(4) of the Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The petitioner-firm was
required to obtain the said ‘Consent to Establish’, as the
Food Supplier Restaurant process, as sought to be
undertaken by the petitioner-firm, fell within the ambit of
the ‘Green Category’. It was submitted that subsequent to
the grant of the said Consent, the petitioner-firm set up
the Cafe and commenced the Seating restaurant of Food
business.

5. The Petitioner Started Café Shop on 12.03.12 as per

the guidelines and post all license received.

6. The Petitioner has obtained all necessary licenses and

permission from the State and local authorities according
to the applicable laws of India for conducting his
business. The Petitioner has also fulfilled all regulatory
requirements and has obtained all necessary permits and
licenses. He has obtained all certifications and
registrations from all relevant authorities. He has fulfilled
all tax obligations and has filed all tax returns.

7. The Petitioner has fire security system placed and 2

exit as per guidelines. He has also implemented health
and safety protocols, and has implemented all necessary

5
preventative measures. He has conducted regular
inspections and audits. The Petitioner has also provided
adequate insurance cover.

8. The Petitioner has been following all the process laid

as per Pollution Board for CAFÉ Effluent. The Petitioner
has kept all records of these activities. He has also taken
the necessary steps to ensure that these protocols are
adhered to. The Petitioner has also implemented a system
to monitor and report any non-compliance.

9. That Petitioner held a FSSAI (Food Safety and

Standards Authority of India) License No.
FSM0023412 , dated 12.02.12, and has been carrying on
this business for the last ten years and has gained a good
reputation for his service in India. A copy of the FSSAI
has been annexed hereunder as ANNEXURE P1.

10. That Petitioner held a Environmental Clearance

License (EC) No. ECMPCB20122231 dated 1.01.12 ,
and has been carrying on this business for the last ten
years and has gained a good reputation for his service in
India. A copy of the EC has been annexed hereunder
as ANNEXURE P2.

6
11. That Petitioner held a Fire Safety License (FS) No.
FSMPCB20122231 dated 2.12.11 , and has been carrying
on this business for the last ten years and has gained a
good reputation for his service in India. A copy of the FS
has been annexed hereunder as ANNEXURE P3.

12. That Petitioner held a Health & Trade License (HTL)

No. HTL MPCB20122231 dated 2.12.11 , and has been
carrying on this business for the last ten years and has
gained a good reputation for his service in India. A copy
of the HTL has been annexed hereunder as ANNEXURE
P4.

13. The Petitioner on 22.03.23 received a notice from the

Respondent No. 1 to show cause and give explanation
that why should not his license be revoked for polluting
the environment through effluents from Coffee House.
The notice also required the Petitioner to produce the
license before the Respondent No. 1. A copy of the
notice has been annexed hereunder as ANNEXURE P5.

14. The Petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 24.03.23,

submitted his explanation, wherein he stated that he did

7
not pollute the environment from running the coffee shop
and effluents from coffee shop is very limited and
directly processing it. He further stated that he has taken
all necessary measures to ensure that the environment is
not polluted. He also provided the local authorities with
all the necessary documents to support his claim. He
stated that all the laws and regulations have been
followed.

15. The Petitioner visited the Mirabhayander Municipal

office to request a re-investigation on the matter. The
Municipal office agreed to the request and promised to
conduct a thorough investigation. The Petitioner
expressed his satisfaction with the commitment and
promised to provide all the necessary documents. The
Municipal office agreed to his request. A copy of the
appeal has been annexed hereunder as ANNEXURE P6.

16. Thereafter, the Respondent No.3, cancelled the

Environmental Clearance license of the Petitioner
without giving proper consideration to the submission of
the Petitioner by order dated 23.04.23. The Petitioner's
Environmental Clearance license was cancelled without
any valid reason or explanation. The Petitioner suffered a

8
significant financial loss due to the Respondent No.3's
decision.

17. The Petitioner Submits the Revoke notice pertained

to the intended closure directions emanating from Section
31A of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,
1981 and Section 33A of Water (Prevention & Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974

18. The decision to revoke our license appears to have

been made without sufficient evidence or a
comprehensive assessment of the alleged environmental
pollution caused by our cafe shop. We requested that the
Board provide detailed documentation and scientific
analysis supporting their claims before taking such
drastic measures. We have not received any response and
we believe that the Board's decision was hasty and
unjustified. We plan to contest this revocation

19. No Complete documents was provided by Board till

date 11.05.23

20. The Re-investigation appeal was rejected by Mira

Bhayander Municipal Department. The matter has been

9
escalated to the higher authorities for further
investigation.

The higher authorities have been asked to provide an

explanation for rejecting the re-investigation request.
They are also asked to take appropriate steps to address
the issues raised in the appeal. The results of the
investigation will be submitted to the municipal
department in due course.

21. The Petitioner café Shop has always been committed

to environmental sustainability and has undertaken
various measures to minimize our environmental
footprint. We have implemented recycling programs,
reduced single-use plastics, and invested in energy-
efficient equipment to mitigate any potential pollution.
We have also committed to using sustainable packaging
materials and have adopted eco-friendly practices. We
also encourage our customers to do the same. We strive
to create an environment of sustainability.

22. The Petitioner is willing to work closely with the

Environment Pollution Board to implement additional
mitigation measures. We are open to suggestions and
recommendations aimed at reducing our impact on the

10
environment while ensuring the continued operation of
our business.

23. The petitioner also illustrated that the petitioners have

invested their entire life’s savings in settingup the
manufacturing unit comprising of total set-up cost
including the cost of machineries to the tune of Rs.
3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Only) besides having
employed a number of persons for all of whom the said
business is the sole source of sustenance. The petitioner
stated that they have invested more than 10 years of their
life’s savings in the unit and are still unable to recover
their investments. This has caused immense financial and
psychological burden on the petitioners and their
families. Therefore, the petitioner requests the court to
provide relief in this matter.

Moreover, the grant of ‘Consent to Establish’ by the

respondent MPCB, enabled the petitioner to seek grant of
several loans from nationalized banks, repayment of
which is still due and outstanding. Therefore, the closure
of the said CAFE activity shall adversely affect multiple
stakeholders such as owners and employees and the other
related individuals with the petitioner-firm.
The outstanding loans from nationalized banks have

11
placed a significant burden on the petitioner's financial
situation. The closure of the CAFE activity would not
only result in the loss of their sole source of sustenance
but also make it extremely challenging for them to repay
the loans, further exacerbating their financial distress.

24. Revoking our license would not only have a

detrimental impact on our business but also on the
livelihoods of our employees and suppliers. the BhukkAd
is a significant contributor to the local economy, and the
sudden closure of our establishment would result in job
losses and financial hardship for 20 individuals. We
would be unable to honor our contracts and commitments
to our customers and other stakeholders, which would
have an even more damaging impact on the local
economy. We would be unable to fulfill our legal
obligations, which could lead to legal and financial
consequences.

25. The revocation of the license was based solely on

anonymous complaints, without any substantial evidence
to support the allegations.

26. The notice given to the cafe shop by the MPCB was
not compliant with the due process requirements,

12
providing insufficient time for compliance and a fair
opportunity to present a defence.

27. The MPCB did not conduct a thorough investigation

or provide any opportunity for the cafe shop to present its
side of the story.

28. The Petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order of

the Respondent has approach this Hon'ble Court.

29. The decision to revoke the license lacked

transparency and was arrived at without considering the
impact of the cafe shop on the community and the
environment.

30. The Petitioner submits that the order dated 23.04.23

by Respondent No. 1 are arbitrary and void amongst
other.

31. The loss of the cafe shop's presence negatively

impacts the local economy, as it generates revenue
through taxes and patronage.

GROUNDS
32. That the present Writ Petition is being filed on the

13
following, amongst other, grounds without prejudice to
each other;

A. Because Respondent No. 1 have issued cancellation

order in violation of the principle of natural justice.

B. Because Respondent No. 1 have not applied their

minds to the facts of the case.

C. Because order dated 23.04.23 by issued by

Respondent No. 1 is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of
the Indian Constitution.

D. Because order dated 23.04.23 by issued by

Respondent No. 1 is in violation of Article (s) 14 and 21
of the Constitution of India, must be a just, fair and
reasonable restriction emanating from law and not from
executive/administrative orders. If the prohibition so
sought to be imposed, is not contained in the law, then
the enforcing authority cannot travel beyond the language
of the law.

Therefore, the provisions of such a nature must be strictly

construed and accordingly, a prohibition cannot be
assumed without there being clear words to that effect or
for that said purpose, within the concerned law itself. In

14
this regard, learned counsel placed reliance upon the
dictum of the Apex Court as enunciated in K.
Kuppusamy and Ors vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
reported in (1998) 8 SCC 469

E. The petitioners placed emphasis on the dictum of the

Apex Court as held in Commissioner of Customs
(Import) Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar and Company &Ors
reported in AIR 2018 SC 3606. Relevant extract is
reproduced herein-under:

“In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes,

the Court has to apply strict rule of interpretation.
The penal statute which tends to deprive a person of
right to life and liberty has to be given strict
interpretation or else many innocent might become
victims of discretionary decision making.”

F. The petitioner is following the guidelines of

sustainable development, which prioritize minimizing
environmental impact and promoting long-term viability.
These guidelines include measures such as reducing
waste generation, optimizing resource use, and
implementing eco-friendly practices. If necessary, the
petitioner is willing to make amendments to ensure
compliance with these guidelines in his business

15
operations.

PRAYERS
In view of the facts & circumstances stated above, it is
most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to:-

a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to the

Respondents and quash order dated 23.04.23 passed by
Respondent No.3;

b) Any other relief, order or direction this court may

deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of
this case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE

APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER
PRAY.

FILED BY:

(________________) ( )
PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

16
DRAWN ON:
Drawn by:

New Delhi
Date:

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN, OWNER of The

Bhukkad AGE: 54 yrs., Indian Inhabitant, Occup.:
Business, Having Cafe at 70, Palli Hills,Mira
Road,THANE -401107 , do hereby solemnly declare
that whatever is stated in the foregoing paragraphs of this
Petition from para ___ to __ are true to
my own knowledge and what is stated in para ___ to ___
are based on information and belief and legal submission
which I believe the same to be true and correct.

Solemnly declare at Mumbai. )

Dated this ___day of December. 2023 )

17
 Petitioner

Identified by me,

Before me,

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2023

DIST.: MUMBAI

Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN

….... Petitioner
V/S.
THE MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD & ORS ……...
Respondents
INDEX
Sr. Particulars Page
No Nos.
.
1 Writ Petition
1-16

18
2 Verification 17
3 INDEX 18-19

4 Affidavit of Petitioner in support of Writ 20-21

Petition
5 Memorandum of address 22
6 List of documents 23-24

7 Vakalatnama 25-26

8 ANNEXURE P1 27
9 ANNEXURE P2 28
10 ANNEXURE P3 29
11 ANNEXURE P4 30
12 ANNEXURE P5 31
13 ANNEXURE P6 32
14 Proof Of Identity 33

PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

19
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2023

DIST.: MUMBAI

Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN

….... Petitioner
V/S.
THE MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD & ORS ……...
Respondents

Affidavit of Petitioner in support of Writ Petition

20
 I, Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN, OWNER of The
Bhukkad AGE: 54 yrs., Indian Inhabitant, Occup.:
Business, Having Cafe at 70, Palli Hills,Mira
Road,THANE -401107 , the Petitioner , above named
do hereby state on solemn affirmation, as under:-

1. I say that we have filed above writ petition against

respondents.
2. I say that contents of said writ are read over to me
and I am conversant with all facts mentioned in the
said writ. I say and submit that I have full knowledge as
to what has been written and prayed in the said complaint
filed by me before this Hon’ble Court.
3. I say that I am making this affidavit in support of
my writ filed against above person and to confirm that
the contents thereof are known to me and under full
knowledge I am filing the said writ.

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai )

On this ___day of DECEMBER, 2023 )

Petitioner

21
Identified and explained by me,

BEFORE ME,

SHRI S. S. DUBEY

Advocate for the Petitioner,

Off.: “1/A, Shiv Sadan,
Goraswadi,Mira Road
Thane-401107.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2023

DIST.: MUMBAI
Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN
….... Petitioner
V/S.
THE MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
& ORS ……... Respondents
MEMORANDUM OF PETITIONER’S REGISTERED
ADDRESS:
Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN,
OWNER of The Bhukkad AGE: 54 yrs., Indian
Inhabitant, Occup.: Business, Having Cafe at 70,
Palli Hills,Mira Road,THANE -401107
SHRI S. S. DUBEY,
Advocate for the Petitioner

22
 5/A, Shiv Sadan, Goraswadi,
Mira Road Thane 401107
MOBILE : 09819515595

PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2023

DIST.: MUMBAI

Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN

….... Petitioner
V/S.
THE MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD & ORS ……...
Respondents

23
 LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELY UPON
PETITIONER

Sr. Particulars
No.
List of documents

1 ANNEXURE P1
2 ANNEXURE P2
3 ANNEXURE P3
4 ANNEXURE P4
5 ANNEXURE P5
6 ANNEXURE P6

PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

24
 VAKALATNAMA
I am not a member of Maharashtra advocates Welfare Fund
& I have not affixed the required stamp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2023
DIST.: MUMBAI

Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN ….... Petitioner

V/S.
THE MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD & ORS ……...
Respondents I / We the
undersigned do hereby appoint and retain SHRI

25
SANJAYDAN S. DUBEY B.COM, LL.B.
ADVOCATE to act and plead for me / us in the
above matter and on my / our behalf to conduct and
prosecute ( or defend ) the same and all proceedings
that may be taken in respect of any application
connected with the same or any decree or order
passed therein and application for receive money on
my / our behalf in the said matter and in applications
for review, and to represent me / us and take all
necessary steps on my / our behalf in the above
matter and also to compromise the above matter on
such terms and conditions as the said advocate (s)
may think just and proper in my / our interest. The
said Advocate (s) When he / they is / are unable to
remain present for any reasons will be entitled to
give proxy to any Advocate (s) of his / their choice.
I / We agree to rectify all acts done by the aforesaid
Advocate (s) in pursuance of this authority.
IN WITNESS WHERE OF I/We do hereunto set my/our
hand to these presents the contents of which have
been understood by me/us on this
………………………………Day of……………………
2023 Accepted subject to the terms of
the fees.
Accepted

SANJAYDAN S. GADHVI
B.COM.LL.B, ADVOCATE
OFFICE:-

26
4th Floor, Panchratna Complex,
Near Amber Cinema,
P. N. Marg,
Mira Road 40117
Mobile: 94262 27111
Email: sanjaydan@gadhvi.in

27