10-WP-2834-2024(C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2834 OF 2024 Sonvarsha Poultry Farm Through Its owner Sachin Abaso Gaikwad ...Petitioner Versus Sub Regional Office Maharashtra Pollution Control Board Sangli And Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. Gaurav Sharma, for the Petitioner. Mr. Jitendra Jagtap, for Respondent No.1 – MPCB. Mr. Laxman Kalel for the Respondent No.4. Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar, AGP for the Respondent No.3-State. —————— CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026. P. C. : 1. By way of amendment, the refusal to consent to operate dated 5th April, 2024 is also challenged before this Court. The order which was initially challenged was a communication dated 22nd February, 2024, by which the closure directions were issued under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, (“Water Act”) and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, (“Air Act”) and under the Hazardous Waste (Management and Jamadar-SL 1 of 3 2026:BHC-KOL:8697-DB 10-WP-2834-2024(C).doc Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. Subsequent to the order of closure, the Petitioner's consent to operate itself has been refused, as against which there is a remedy of appeal under the provisions of the Water Act and Air Act. 2. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that leave was granted to amend the petition to challenge the order dated 5th April, 2024, and therefore, the challenge should be considered by this Court. As there is a remedy of appeal provided under the statute against the refusal of consent to operate, we are not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction to consider whether the consent to operate should be granted to the Petitioner or not. The issue is best left to the experts in the field in order to consider whether the consent to operate the Poultry Farm can be granted and the conditions on which such consent should be granted. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would further submit that the interim protection which was granted should be continued. 3. We find that initially the order was for closure, which indicates that, at that time the consent to establish was granted. Subsequently, as the consent to operate itself is refused, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to carry on the activity without the consent from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. Hence, we are not inclined to permit the operation of the Poultry Farm without an appropriate Jamadar-SL 2 of 3 10-WP-2834-2024(C).doc consent from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, as it is an environmental/pollution issue. 4. It is open for the Petitioner to challenge the consent to operate before the appellate authority. 5. The petition is disposed of by relegating the Petitioner to the remedy of appeal. 6. As the Petition was pending for consideration before this Court, the appellate authority, while considering the appeal against refusal of consent to operate, to take into consideration the pendency of the proceedings before this Court. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Jamadar-SL 3 of 3