“A person claiming a right to be heard must show that they have a legal right that is being taken away”: on that reasoning, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a Pollution Board Can Close Unlicensed Factory without a show-cause notice.
Indore: Writ petitions by Mudra Steel Industries Pvt Ltd, a manufacturer of TMT steel bars, against closure and electricity disconnection directions of the State Pollution Control Board have failed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. A factory operating without valid consent under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 cannot demand a show-cause notice before it is shut, the Court held, while leaving the company free to apply afresh for Consent to Operate [Mudra Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].
W.P. Nos. 35908/2026 and 25194/2026 were decided together on 28 September 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, in a judgment written by Justice Pillai.
No legal right, no hearing
The Court began with natural justice, which it said is not a rigid formula. The petitioner’s right to operate had ended with its consent on 31 March 2026, so closure without a show-cause notice took away no legal right:
“A person claiming a right to be heard must show that they have a legal right that is being taken away.”
Operating without consent is itself an offence, the Bench added, and a long notice period for an unlicensed factory would defeat the purpose of the environmental laws:
“Running a factory without consent is a crime under the Air Act.”
What the petitioner and the respondents argued
Senior Advocate Amit Agrawal, appearing with Advocate Akhil Godha for the petitioner, argued that the closure was passed without jurisdiction because the Board as a body, and not its Chairman alone, holds the power under Section 4 of the Act, and that no show-cause notice or hearing was given, in breach of natural justice.
Government Advocate Pradyumna Kibe for the State and Advocate Aniket Naik for the Board submitted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the Act, that it ran a large orange-category industry melting iron at high temperatures and producing dangerous smoke and hazardous waste, and that it had not complied with the mandatory direction to install the fume extraction system within six months.
The Chairman’s power in an emergency
The Court rejected the jurisdiction argument. In emergencies, it held, the Chairman may take immediate steps to stop pollution, which are then placed before the Board. It noted that the pollution from the open induction furnace was serious and that quick action was needed to protect public health.
Compliance on the ground
Going through the inspection records, the Court found that the petitioner had not met the mandatory condition of the original consent and had kept operating without valid consent after March 2026. The law demands strict compliance, it stressed, and under Section 21(4) of the Act the State Board may cancel consent:
“Having a machine is useless, if it is not turned on during the manufacturing process.”
From consent to closure
In April 2025 the Board granted the petitioner a Consent to Operate valid until 31 March 2026. The consent required it to install a “Dog House Type” fume extraction system on both of its induction furnaces within six months. The petitioner applied for renewal on 28 March 2026, but an inspection on 14 April 2026 found several defects, including non-compliance with the fume extraction condition, and the renewal was rejected.
The Board then ordered closure and disconnection of electricity under Section 31A of the Air Act. The petitioner made a representation, asked for 90 days to upgrade the system and deposited a bank guarantee of Rs 17 lakh. By an order of 16 June 2026 the Board put the closure on hold and allowed the upgrade until 31 July 2026. The petitioner applied afresh for consent on 13 August, and the Board inspected the unit on 19 August.
After complaints, the Collector of Dhar also carried out a surprise inspection and found the pollution control systems not working properly. In the last week of August the Board encashed the bank guarantee and ordered closure again, and on 11 September 2026 it rejected the fresh consent application. The petitioner challenged the closure directions and the rejection orders.
The directions
The petitions were dismissed, but the Court gave liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for Consent to Operate, and directed the Board to consider it strictly in accordance with law and the applicable environmental rules.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling ties the right to a pre-closure hearing to the existence of a legal right. Where consent has lapsed or has not been validly obtained, the Court treats the unit as having nothing to defend at the show-cause stage, which makes it easier for pollution control boards to act at once against polluting units.
It also confirms that the Chairman’s emergency power can be used to stop pollution without waiting for the full Board. The petitioner’s route is a fresh consent application, which the Board has been told to decide strictly under the law.
Case Title: Mudra Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case No.: W.P. Nos. 35908/2026 and 25194/2026 (2026:MPHC-IND:28340)
Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench)
Date of Judgment: September 28, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Amit Agrawal with Advocate Akhil Godha for Mudra Steel Industries; Advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar for the petitioner in the connected petition; Government Advocate Pradyumna Kibe for the State; Advocate Aniket Naik for the Board