JUDGMENT M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioners challenge the Circular dated 27th March 2019 issued by the Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) under the title "Guidelines for transportation and treatment of cat 3.1, cat 3.2, cat 3.3 and cat 3.4". The Petitioners claim to be affected by clause 5 of this impugned Circular which inter alia provides that the waste generator of hazardous waste of cat 3.1, cat 3.2, cat 3.3, cat 3.4 and cat 5.2 should be recycled through GSPCB authorized recyclers operating in the State of Goa. 4. The Petitioners have pleaded and it is not even denied that they are undertaking the activities of recycling hazardous waste of the aforesaid categories for the last several years, based upon authorizations granted to them under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA) and the Hazardous and other wastes ( Management & Transboundary Movement ) Rules, 2016 ( Hazardous Waste Rules). The Petitioners have pleaded that they have necessary authorizations for receiving and transportation of hazardous waste in the State of Goa and authorizations for recycling of such waste at their facility in the State of Maharashtra. The Petitioners have pleaded that clause 5 of the Circular, operates to prevent waste generators in the State of Goa from engaging services of Petitioners, simply because the Petitioners do not have a recycling facility in the State of Goa. The Petitioners have pleaded that at least in so far as category 5.2 hazardous waste is concerned, it is only M/s. Canacona Hydrocarbons i.e. Respondent No.4 herein which has the facility of recycling in the State of Goa. The Petitioners have therefore alleged that the impugned Circular has been issued at the behest of Respondent No.4 and to confer a virtual monopoly status upon Respondent No.4 when it comes to recycling of certain hazardous waste generated in the State of Goa. The Petitioners have alleged that there are malafides involved and in any case, the impugned Circular runs counter to the provisions of EPA and Hazardous Waste Rules. The Petitioners have alleged that the impugned Circular has been issued without any application of mind and the restriction imposed is ex facie, arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory. The Petitioners have alleged that there are malafides involved and in any case, the impugned Circular runs counter to the provisions of EPA and Hazardous Waste Rules. The Petitioners have alleged that the impugned Circular has been issued without any application of mind and the restriction imposed is ex facie, arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory. The Petitioners have pleaded that the impugned Circular fetters the discretion of the authorities like GSPCB to examine nuances of individual cases and is therefore arbitrary and unreasonable. The Petitioners have pleaded that the impugned Circular imposes unreasonable restrictions on their right to carry on trade, occupation, and business and since, such unreasonable restrictions have been imposed by an executive order having no statutory unpinning whatsoever, the same violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the Petitioners reiterated the aforesaid contentions after he took us through the relevant material on record. Mr. Desai relied on the following decisions: U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Mohd. Ismail and ors., (1991) 3 SCC 239 , State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh and ors., (2006) 2 SCC 545 , Diamond Jubilee High School & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 5 AIRBomR 190 , Shri Rama Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors., (1974) 1 SCC 534 , Trish Gupta vs. Guru Gobind Singh University,2012 SCCOnlineDel 5543 , Regina North vs. North West Lancashire Health Authority, (2000) 1 WLR 977 , State of Gujarat and ors vs. Lalsingh Kishansingh, (1981) AIR SC 368 Gulf Goans Hotels Company Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., (2014) 10 SCC 673 , A-G Ex Red. Tilley vs. Wandsworth LBC, (1981) 1 WLR 854 in support of his contentions. 6. Mr. Pavithran, learned counsel for the GSPCB defended the impugned Circular based on defenses set out in the affidavit filed by the Member Secretary Dr. Shamila Monteiro. He submits that the Circular has been issued in the public interest because the experience indicated that monitoring and ensuring compliance with the Hazardous Waste Rules was becoming difficult in the case of recyclers who did not have any recycling facilities in the State of Goa. Shamila Monteiro. He submits that the Circular has been issued in the public interest because the experience indicated that monitoring and ensuring compliance with the Hazardous Waste Rules was becoming difficult in the case of recyclers who did not have any recycling facilities in the State of Goa. He submitted that even otherwise the transportation of hazardous waste over long distances is not in the public interest and is contrary to the Basel convention which postulates the treatment of such hazardous waste as close as possible to the source of its generation. He submitted that even though the representation of the Respondent No.4, who is the only recycler having facility in the State of Goa may have taken into consideration by the GSPCB, it is incorrect to allege that the impugned Circular was issued to unduly assist the Respondent No.4 or to promote the monopoly of the Respondent No.4. He points out that in the past the GSPCB acting on representations of the Petitioners had kept a similar Circular in abeyance and therefore, the allegation of discrimination or unreasonableness lacks basis. He submitted that there were breaches on the part of the Petitioners and the impugned Circular has been issued only to ensure proper monitoring and compliance with the Hazardous Waste Rules. He submits that there is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in the restriction imposed and therefore, there is no violation of Article 14 or 19 of the Constitution of India. He relies on Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy v. Union of India and Another, (2005) 10 SCC 510 , Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India and Another (I.A. No.63 of 2012 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.(s) 657 of 1995) , in support of his contentions. 7. Mr. V. A. Lawande, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 supports the submissions made by Mr. Pavithran on behalf of the GSPCB. He submits that there is material on record that establishes that the Petitioners breached the terms of authorization and therefore, no petition at the behest of the present Petitioners ought to be entertained. He submits that the transportation of hazardous waste over long distances is certainly not advisable and runs contrary to what is specified in the Basel convention. He submits that there is material on record that establishes that the Petitioners breached the terms of authorization and therefore, no petition at the behest of the present Petitioners ought to be entertained. He submits that the transportation of hazardous waste over long distances is certainly not advisable and runs contrary to what is specified in the Basel convention. He submits that there is a tendency on the part of the recyclers having facilities in the different States but simply dump the hazardous waste unauthorizedly since, the monitoring mechanism prescribed under the Hazardous Waste Rules, cannot reach them. He submits that even the States of Maharashtra and Karnataka have restrictions similar to those imposed by the impugned Circular of which the Petitioner is beneficiary. He submits that there is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in the restriction imposed, particularly because the Petitioner is not precluded from recycling categories of the hazardous waste that are not specified in the impugned Circular like category 5.1 hazardous waste. He submits that the restrictions are in the public interest and such restrictions can very well be imposed by the executive instructions, having regard to precautionary principle and mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. For all these reasons, he submits that this petition is liable to be dismissed. He relies on Mumbai Waste Management Limited v. Secretary of Environment, Union of India and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 511 , M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others, (2002) 4 SCC 356 , Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy v Union of India and Another, (2005) 10 SCC 510 , Mumbai Waste Management Ltd. vs Government of India,2012 SCCOnLineBom 407 and Abhilash Textile and Others etc. v. The Rajkot Municipal Corporation,1987 SCCOnLineGuj 47 in support of his contentions. 9. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 10. The Petitioners have pleaded and even the record bears out that the Petitioners have been operating as recyclers in the State of Goa from 2010 onwards even though, they have their facility of recycling at Palghar in the State of Maharashtra. 9. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 10. The Petitioners have pleaded and even the record bears out that the Petitioners have been operating as recyclers in the State of Goa from 2010 onwards even though, they have their facility of recycling at Palghar in the State of Maharashtra. The record also bears out that the Petitioners have necessary authorizations from Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board ( MSPCB) as well as the GSPCB which is, in fact, the stipulation in the Hazardous Waste Rules in case any recycler desires to receive hazardous waste in one State but recycle the same in another. 11. The Petitioners have pleaded and even otherwise record bears out that Respondent No.4 is the only agency which has its recycling facility at Canacona Goa i.e. authorized recycle category 5.2 waste but not category 5.1 waste. In effect, therefore, there can be no dispute that clause 5 of the impugned Circular bars the Petitioners or recyclers similarly placed from even receiving category 5.2 hazardous waste in the State of Goa for recycling outside the State of Goa. Similarly, there can be no dispute that clause 5 of the impugned Circular, virtually creates a monopoly in favor of Respondent No.4, when it comes to recycling of category 5.2 hazardous waste in the State of Goa. Both, GSPCB as well as the Respondent No.4 have not even disputed that this is the effect of clause 5 of the impugned Circular. 12. Now the record also bears out that on 02.04.2013 the GSPCB had issued a similar Circular or rather, an identical Circular, which had banned the recyclers, that did not have recycling facilities in the State of Goa from even receiving category 5.2 hazardous waste generated in the State of Goa for recycling. At that time, the Junior Environmental Engineer of GSPCB had even addressed a letter dated 27.09.2013 to the Mormugao Port Trust (MPT) - Respondent No.2 herein informing the MPT about Circular dated 02.04.2013 and further pointing out that Respondent No.4 was the only recycler then registered with GSPCB for recycling hazardous waste oil of category 3.1 and 5.2. In effect, the GSPCB, by issuing the Circular dated 02.04.2013 informed the MPT that the hazardous waste oil of categories 3.1 and 5.2 could be recycled only through Respondent No.4 herein. 13. In effect, the GSPCB, by issuing the Circular dated 02.04.2013 informed the MPT that the hazardous waste oil of categories 3.1 and 5.2 could be recycled only through Respondent No.4 herein. 13. The Petitioners, at that time, addressed a detailed representation to the GSPCB, urging the withdrawal of Circular dated 02.04.2013. The Petitioners, also addressed detailed representations to the Central Government through the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF), requesting to prevail upon the GSPCB to withdraw the Circular dated 02.04.2013. The Petitioners pointed out that such Circular was contrary to Hazardous Waste Rules, which had not only contemplated a situation where the proposed recyclers may not have facilities in the State where such hazardous waste was generated but further had also provided adequate safeguards and monitoring provisions to deal with such a situation. 14. The MOEF, by communication dated 05.12.2014 requested the GSPCB to reconsider its position and in any case to furnish comments urgently. By communication dated 27.03.2015, the MOEF wrote to the GSPCB to ensure that recyclers having facilities outside the State of Goa also file returns to the respective SPCB ( including Goa) from where the hazardous waste was to be obtained for recycling. In effect, reading of MOEF's communication dated 27.03.2015 suggests that even the MOEF did not approve the GSPCB's Circular virtually banning the Petitioners or agencies similarly placed from operating in the State of Goa but at the same time, directed the GSPCB to ensure that the returns are filed by such agencies before both the respective SPCBs to ensure proper monitoring. The GSPCB also quite correctly understood the MOEF's clarification dated 27.03.2015 to mean the disapproval of restriction imposed by the GSPCB in its Circular dated 02.04.2013. Based upon the MOEF's clarification dated 27.03.2015 and by making express reference to the same, the GSPCB vide Circular dated 23.07.2015 kept its Circular dated 02.04.2013 in abeyance for one year, with an option to review the position after one year. 15. The GSPCB then proceeded to issue the Petitioners authorization dated 04.09.2015 valid up to 22.07.2016 to enable the Petitioners to undertake its activity in the State of Goa. The GSPCB thereafter issued yet another authorization dated 01.08.2016 to the Petitioners, which is valid up to 01.08.2021. 15. The GSPCB then proceeded to issue the Petitioners authorization dated 04.09.2015 valid up to 22.07.2016 to enable the Petitioners to undertake its activity in the State of Goa. The GSPCB thereafter issued yet another authorization dated 01.08.2016 to the Petitioners, which is valid up to 01.08.2021. Thus, today as the position stands the Petitioners have valid authorization to receive, to recycle hazardous waste of category 5.1 and 5.2 even though, their recycling facility is in the neighboring state of Maharashtra. The Petitioners, however, on account of clause 5 of the impugned Circular dated 27.03.2019, are unable to effectively use such authorization. The impugned Circular dated 27.03.2019, appears to have completely sidelined or overlooked the MOEF clarification dated 27.03.2015, which was the basis for keeping in abeyance the identical Circular dated 02.04.2013. 16. Mr. Pavithran, learned counsel for the GSPCB, perhaps conscious of the aforesaid, pointed out that the GSPCB has written to the MOEF, not only about the difficulty experienced by it but also circumstance that different State Pollution Control Boards have different policies. Mr. Pavithran pointed out that the GSPCB has urged the MOEF to come out with some uniform policy applicable throughout the country on the issue of recyclers having facilities outside the State where waste is generated can operate. Mr. Pavithran submits that there is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable on the part of the GSPCB in issuing the impugned Circular even before any such uniform policy is formulated by the MOEF. 17. The record bears out and even the GSPCB in its affidavit has admitted that the genesis for issuing the impugned Circular dated 27.03.2019 was the representation made by the Respondent No.4 pointing out that it will be difficult for Respondent No.4 to survive, if, the operators having recycling facilities outside the State of Goa were permitted to receive the category 5.2 waste generated in the State of Goa. Respondent No.4 had also pointed out that the neighboring states of Maharashtra and Karnataka had imposed restrictions similar to those which the GSPCB had imposed in its earlier Circular dated 02.04.2013. Mr. Pavithran learned counsel for the GSPCB at one stage submitted that it is the duty of the GSPCB to see that the operators having facilities in the State of Goa survive, as otherwise, the issue of disposal of hazardous waste will not be effectively redressed. Mr. Pavithran learned counsel for the GSPCB at one stage submitted that it is the duty of the GSPCB to see that the operators having facilities in the State of Goa survive, as otherwise, the issue of disposal of hazardous waste will not be effectively redressed. He, however, clarified that this would not mean that the GSPCB has a special affinity to Respondent No.4 but there was a public interest in ensuring that the hazardous waste is disposed of close to the source of its generation. Mr. Pavithran submitted that since Respondent No.4 had no facility for the recycling of category 5.1 hazardous waste, even now there was no prohibition upon the Petitioners to receive such waste in the State of Goa for recycling in the State of Maharashtra. 18. According to us, the GSPCB based upon the MOEF's clarification dated 27.03.2015 had already considered this issue in some detail and thereafter resolved to withdraw its earlier Circular dated 02.04.2013, which was almost identical to the impugned Circular dated 27.03.2019. At that time also, the Petitioners had complained about they being prevented from undertaking any business in the State of Goa and the Respondent No.4 had also raised the issue supporting its position. The GSPCB having regard to the Hazardous Waste Rules and the clarification issued by the MOEF dated 27.03.2015, had kept its earlier Circular dated 02.04.2013 in abeyance and even issued authorizations to the Petitioners, which authorizations are valid even to this date. The GSPCB, without establishing any significant change in the circumstances but once again acting solely based on renewed representations from the Respondent No.4 had issued the impugned Circular dated 27.03.2019 thereby, reintroducing its earlier Circular dated 02.04.2013, which it had kept in abeyance after deliberations and having regard to the MOEF clarification dated 27.03.2015. Except for repeated representations of Respondent No.4, at least the GSPCB has not placed any material before us justifying this change. Even assuming that the survival of Respondent No.4, by immunizing it against any competition could be regarded as one of the considerations permissible for the GSPCB to take into account, surely, a decision of this nature, based only upon such a consideration would be ex facie, arbitrary, discriminatory, null and void. 19. Even assuming that the survival of Respondent No.4, by immunizing it against any competition could be regarded as one of the considerations permissible for the GSPCB to take into account, surely, a decision of this nature, based only upon such a consideration would be ex facie, arbitrary, discriminatory, null and void. 19. The GSPCB and the Respondent No.4, perhaps realizing the aforesaid, also urged that the Petitioners have been defaulters and it is through experience gained from such defaults, the impugned Circular has been issued by providing that there are difficulties in monitoring and ensuring compliance. Unfortunately, the material placed on record does not bear out the commission of any serious defaults on the part of the Petitioners. Besides, even if it is assumed that there have been any defaults, then there are several provisions under the EPA and Hazardous Waste Rules to deal with such defaulting agencies. Perhaps the authorization issued to such defaulting agencies can be suspended or canceled as is provided under the Hazardous Waste Rules. Such defaulting agencies need not be permitted, even to deal with any category of hazardous waste and not just hazardous waste of category 5.2 or limited categories referred to in the impugned Circular dated 27.03.2019. Based upon such alleged defaults, the GSPCB, cannot issue a general Circular, wiping out the competition and establishing a monopoly of one agency i.e. the Respondent No.4 in the State of Goa when it comes to recycling of category 5.2 hazardous waste. 20. The only material placed on record by the GSPCB to suggest any default on the part of the Petitioners is a show-cause notice dated 26.09.2013 issued by the GSPCB to the Petitioners alleging that though the Petitioners were authorized only to collect category 5.1 waste i.e. used/spent oil, the Petitioners were found to be collecting category 5.2 waste i.e. sludge/waste oil. The Petitioners responded on 30.09.2013 pointing out the authorization issued by the GSPCB itself, which made clear reference to both categories of waste. The Petitioners also referred to the Hazardous Waste Rules and explained that there was neither any breach of the said Rules nor any breach of the terms of the authorization issued by the GSPCB. 21. The record bears out that on receipt of response dated 30.09.2013, even the GSPCB did not pursue its show-cause notice dated 26.09.2013. The Petitioners also referred to the Hazardous Waste Rules and explained that there was neither any breach of the said Rules nor any breach of the terms of the authorization issued by the GSPCB. 21. The record bears out that on receipt of response dated 30.09.2013, even the GSPCB did not pursue its show-cause notice dated 26.09.2013. Rather the GSPCB, not only kept its earlier Circular dated 02.04.2013 in abeyance but went on to issue two further authorizations to the Petitioners, which are in force to date. Based, therefore, on the show cause notice dated 26.09.2013 the GSPCB cannot claim to have gained some experience about agencies having facilities outside the State of Goa tending to commit defaults and banning such agencies altogether from dealing with wastes that can be recycled only by Respondent no. 4 in the state of Goa. This, according to us, is too flimsy a basis to defend the ban or justify the monopoly in favor of Respondent no. 4. 22. Mr. Pavithran in the course of his arguments also submitted that the returns for the last two years have not been filed by the Petitioners, despite MOEF as well as said Rules requiring the Petitioners to file returns with both SPCBs. Again, there is no proper material in support of this. In any case, only this cannot be the basis for issuing the impugned Circular and banning not just the Petitioners but also similarly placed agencies that may have committed no defaults whatsoever. There are sufficient provisions under the EPA as well as the Hazardous Waste Rules to deal with defaults. However, based upon such isolated defaults, if any, the GSPCB could not have issued the impugned Circular virtually banning the recyclers having facilities outside the State of Goa and creating a virtual monopoly in favor of Respondent No.4. The impugned Circular or for that matter, the restriction imposed by it is vitiated by non-application of mind, ignoring relevant considerations and taking into account irrelevant considerations. 23. The observations in Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy (supra) were made before coming into force of Hazardous Waste Rules of 2016. The impugned Circular or for that matter, the restriction imposed by it is vitiated by non-application of mind, ignoring relevant considerations and taking into account irrelevant considerations. 23. The observations in Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy (supra) were made before coming into force of Hazardous Waste Rules of 2016. The observations are mainly in the context of transboundary movement of hazardous waste and even reference to Basel convention that such hazardous waste should as far as possible be treated close to the source of its generation were made mainly in the context of such transboundary movement of hazardous waste. There is no dispute that the transboundary movement of hazardous waste means movement from one country to other. But even if the consideration that the hazardous waste, as far as possible, should be disposed of close to its source is considered a valid consideration, the same cannot be achieved by issuing a circular without any regard to the statutory rules that operate in this domain. The Hazardous Waste Rules of 2016, very clearly permit and even contemplate the receipt of hazardous waste in one State and its transportation to another State for recycling, etc. No doubt, there are restrictions imposed by the Hazardous Waste Rules themselves to ensure proper monitoring and safeguards. One of the conditions is giving proper intimation and even obtaining authorizations from both the State Pollution Control Boards. Since this field is substantially occupied by the statutory rules in force, the GSPCB was not justified in issuing the impugned Circular, which is like executive action, in the name of effective monitoring or ensuring compliance. There are several provisions under the Hazardous Waste Rules, which empower the GSPCB from dealing with individual cases or cases of individual/agency committing defaults. The impugned Circular has the effect of fettering the discretion which is conferred by such Rules and normally, a public body having endowed with statutory discretion cannot, fetter its discretion in this manner or disable itself from considering the nuances of particular cases where statutory rules require it to do so. 24. The restriction imposed by clause 5 of the impugned Circular undoubtedly affects the Petitioners' right to undertake any trade, occupation, or business. Even assuming that there is some reasonability in the restrictions, admittedly, such restrictions have been imposed not by any law but merely by executive instructions having no statutory unpinning whatsoever. Mr. 24. The restriction imposed by clause 5 of the impugned Circular undoubtedly affects the Petitioners' right to undertake any trade, occupation, or business. Even assuming that there is some reasonability in the restrictions, admittedly, such restrictions have been imposed not by any law but merely by executive instructions having no statutory unpinning whatsoever. Mr. Pavithran was unable to point out any provisions under the EPA or Hazardous Waste Rules in terms of which such executive instructions could be issued. Mr. Pavithran did refer to the provisions of Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, which empowers the SPCBs to issue directions. He submitted that because in terms of the Hazardous Waste Rules, the Board constituted under the Water Act is to function as a Board under the Hazardous Waste Rules, The impugned Circular can be regarded as some directions issued under Section 33A of the Water Act. 25. According to us, Mr. Pavithran's contention cannot be accepted simply because the Board constituted for the Water Act is to function as the Board for the Hazardous Waste Rules. Though the Board may be the same, such Board cannot use its powers under the Water Act for dealing with situations covered by Hazardous Waste Rules. Neither does Circular make any reference to Section 33A of the Water Act nor is there any other material placed before us to indicate that even the GSPCB while issuing the impugned Circular was under the impression that it has issued directions under Section 33A of the Water Act. 26. In Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there can be no deprivation of fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution except under law. The Court further held that the requirement of law for Article 19(6) of the Constitution cannot be achieved by issuing a Circular or policy decision in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution. Similarly, in Diamond Jubilee High School ( supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that the restrictions on rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution can be placed only by law and not by Circular or resolution issued under Article 162 of the Constitution. As noted earlier, the impugned Circular has no statutory unpinning. The impugned Circular is not law for Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. As noted earlier, the impugned Circular has no statutory unpinning. The impugned Circular is not law for Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. This is an additional ground to strike down clause 5 of the impugned circular. This is more so because the Hazardous Waste Rules do not contemplate the issuance of any such blanket restrictions. Under the Hazardous Waste Rules, no doubt, the GSPCB can, exercise discretion in dealing with individual cases, provided such discretion is exercised on valid considerations, valid material, and not based on non- existent material or irrelevant considerations. 27. The Hazardous Waste Rules contemplate the situation where the recyclers may not have facilities in the State where the hazardous waste is generated. Therefore, appropriate safeguards have been provided in Hazardous Waste Rules to deal with such a situation. If the GSPCB finds that any agencies, whether it may be the Petitioners or the Respondent No.4, are acting in breach of Hazardous Waste Rules or terms of authorizations, it is always open to the GSPCB to take appropriate action as is provided in the Rules itself. However, that does not mean that the GSPCB, based on some vague allegations of defaults made by Respondent no. 4, can proceed to issue the impugned Circular virtually banning the Petitioners and other similarly placed agencies from operating within the State of Goa thereby wiping out the entire competition for the Respondent No.4 and establishing a virtual monopoly of the Respondent No.4. 28. Mr. Pavithran and Mr. Lawande urged that having regard to the provisions of Article 21 read with Article 48A of the Constitution, the GSPCB was authorized to issue executive instructions in a matter of this nature. Mr. Lawande submitted that no party can claim any fundamental right to deal with hazardous waste. It is rather strange that such a contention should be raised on behalf of Respondent No.4 which is itself involved in the activity of dealing with hazardous waste. Be that as it may, such a contention cannot stand, having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gulf Goans Hotels Company Ltd. (supra). In the said case, the executive fiat having no statutory unpinning had restricted constructions within 90 meters from the High Tide Line. This was before entering into force of CRZ Notification. Be that as it may, such a contention cannot stand, having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gulf Goans Hotels Company Ltd. (supra). In the said case, the executive fiat having no statutory unpinning had restricted constructions within 90 meters from the High Tide Line. This was before entering into force of CRZ Notification. Based thereon, several structures within 90 meters from High Tide Line were held to be illegal, unauthorized, and ordered to be demolished. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that since the permissible and impermissible parameters had to be determined under Sections 3 and 6 of the EPA, 1986 by framing of Rules, the executive instructions would not be enforceable. The position is not different in the present case where there are statutory rules which govern the situation that the GSPCB now seeks to govern through executive instruction. This, according to us, is not permissible. 29. Though Mr. Lawande has placed on record two authorizations issued by the SPCBs of Maharashtra and Karnataka, no material is placed on record by any of the Respondents to suggest that there is any policy in the said two States similar to that which is now introduced by clause 5 of the impugned circular. Mr. Pavithran for the GSPCB had pointed out that the GSPCB has already applied to the MOEF to formulate a uniform policy to deal with such issues. Pending any formulation or response from the MOEF, the GSPCB could not have proceeded to impose the impugned restriction, having earlier kept in abeyance an identical restriction based on the clarification from MOEF. 30. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Pavithran and Mr. Lawande do not directly concern the issues raised in this petition. Some stray sentences or observations, torn out of the context cannot be employed to support the contentions raised by and on behalf of the contesting Respondents. 31. For all the aforesaid reasons, we quash and set aside clause 5 of the impugned Circular dated 27.03.2019. The rest of the clauses do not affect the Petitioners and they, in any case, appear to only reiterate the statutory requirements prescribed in the Hazardous Waste rules. 32. 31. For all the aforesaid reasons, we quash and set aside clause 5 of the impugned Circular dated 27.03.2019. The rest of the clauses do not affect the Petitioners and they, in any case, appear to only reiterate the statutory requirements prescribed in the Hazardous Waste rules. 32. The Petitioners have also challenged the letter dated 20.06.2019 addressed by GSPCB to the MPT and letter dated 04.07.2019 addressed by the MPT informing the Petitioners about the impugned Circular dated 27.03.2019 issued by the GSPCB and expressing inability to permit the Petitioners from receiving any hazardous waste for recycling from the vessels docked at MPT. Both these letters are entirely based on clause 5 of the impugned Circular dated 27.03.2019 issued by the GSPCB. Now that the said clause is struck down, both these letters will not survive and are hereby struck down. 33. The Petitioners, it appears, out of abundant caution, have challenged the Circular dated 02.04.2013 as well. Now, this Circular was kept in abeyance by the GSPCB itself. Assuming that it has, at any time revived, then the clause therein, corresponding to clause 5 of the impugned Circular dated 27.03.2019, is also struck down. 34. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. 35. At this stage, Mr. Lawande, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 seeks for a stay on the order which we have just pronounced. According to us, in the facts of the present case, there is no question of grant of stay. Accordingly, the request for stay is not granted.