Chitra Sonawane. 36-WP-10114-26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10114 OF 2026 Dadhe Constructions Pvt Ltd. & Anr. .. Petitioners. Vs. State of Mahrashtra & Ors ... Respondents. ... Mr Saket Mone a/w Anchita Nair and Fatema Kothari i/by Vidhii Partners for the Petitioners. Mrs Neha Bhide, GP a/w OA Chandurkar, Addl. Govt Pleader a/w Mrs GR Raghuvanshi, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr Jitendra Jagtap for R-4.(MPCB). ... CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioners for following substantive reliefs : "a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or Order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby calling for the papers and proceedings culminating in the Impugned Order-l in Item No. 1 in the 337th (Part B) Meeting dated 12th May 2026 uploaded on 21 May 2026 (Exhibit-Z) issued by Respondent 1 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date: 2026.09.29 12:05:52 +0530 Chitra Sonawane. 36-WP-10114-26.doc No. 2-SEIAA and after going through the legality and validity thereof, may be pleased to quash and set aside the same; b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or Order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby calling for the papers and proceedings culminating in the Impugned Order-2 in Item No. 38 in 194th meeting dated 16th August 2024 (Exhibit-Q) issued by Respondent No. 3-SEAC-3 and after going through the legality and validity thereof, may be pleased to quash and set aside the same; c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or Order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondent No. 2-SEIAA and Respondent No. 3-SEAC-3 to reconsider and forthwith grant the prior Environmental Clearance to the Petitioner as sought in the Petitioner's Application dated 24th May 2024 (Exhibit- 0) d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or Order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondent Authorities to forthwith grant all the requisite approvals and permissions required for the said project in accordance with law; 3. The Petitioners have assailed the Impugned Orders dated 12th May 2026 passed by Respondent No.2 and Order dated 16th August 2024 passed by Respondent No.3 holding that the Petitioners have carried out 2 Chitra Sonawane. 36-WP-10114-26.doc construction activity without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance and is in violation of provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006 read with Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 4. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in support of his submission placed reliance on the Order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 6th August 2024, in the case of Haroon Ebrahim Patel Vs. The State of Maharasthra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.363 of 2020. He submits that the present matter is covered by the said Order. In this view of the matter, in the event this Court is inclined to remand the proceedings to the Competent Authority, for reconsideration, the Respondents have no objection for the same. 5. Considering the factual situation as emerged in this Petition and prima facie, as we find this case being covered by the Order in Haroon Ebrahim Patel (supra), we are not inclined to keep the matter pending any further. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, the Writ Petition is partly disposed of in the following terms : (i) The Impugned Orders dated 12th May 2026 and 16th August 2024 are quashed and set aside. (ii) The proceedings in regard to the aforesaid Impugned Orders are remanded back to the Competent Authority for de novo consideration. (iii) The Competent Authority to hear the parties and decide the matter within 8 weeks from the production of certified copy of this Order before the Competent Authority by the Petitioners. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 3 Chitra Sonawane. 36-WP-10114-26.doc 4