HC directs closure of mall over environmental concerns

The Bombay high court on Wednesday directed the closure of Growel’s 101 mall at Kandivali East, which was allegedly built and operated without the necessary environmental clearances.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday directed the closure of Growel’s 101 mall at Kandivali East, which was allegedly built and operated without the necessary environmental clearances. Criticising the petitioner, Grauer and Weil (India) Limited, for challenging the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board’s order of March 5, 2024, to close the mall, the court ruled that commercial interests could not override legal and environmental obligations.

The Bombay high court on Wednesday directed the closure of Growel’s 101 mall at Kandivali East, which was allegedly built and operated without the necessary environmental clearances. (HT PHOTO)

Grauer and Weil (India) Limited’s advocate Ayush Agarwal submitted that despite the company’s failure to obtain environmental clearance, closure directions should not have been issued since the construction had been applied for under some amnesty scheme in 2016 which was still pending. He further stated that the MPCB order was issued without the justification of extreme urgency.

The state counsel, advocate Milind More, defended the closure order, submitting that the petitioner had already admitted to constructing and running the mall without the necessary permissions. “Environmental violations cannot be excused on procedural grounds,” he said.

Justices M S Sonak and Jitendra Jain questioned the ambiguity of the petitioner’s application to construct under an amnesty scheme, stating that this did not entitle him to reap commercial profits at the cost of environmental concerns. Observing that the act of building and operating a mall without environmental clearance was extremely serious, the bench also exhibited dissatisfaction at the petitioner’s argument that MPCB’s regional directors could exercise powers only in cases of extreme urgency. “The argument almost suggests that the regional director had to wait for some environmental disaster and only then exercise the powers delegated to him or her,” it said.

The court remarked that the petitioner virtually considered himself above the law, and added that compliance with environmental legislation could not be allowed to be defeated based upon such contentions. Stating that the petitioner had taken the law into their own hands by constructing the mall, the court ruled that it was only proper that the closure directions were implemented immediately.

“We refrain from imposing any costs in the fond hope that this will not be repeated in the future. The MPCB must immediately enforce its closure directions,” the bench concluded.