Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gaddam Aravind vs Cbwtf Association Of Ap on 7 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAp^^^''^^
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY
'Tr.
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
l■A■Nos■2 & 3 of 2025
In/and
WRIT PETITION NO: 6365 OF 2025
I.A.No.2 of 2025
Between:
Gaddam Aravind, Law Student & Environment Activist
S/o. G.V. Ramana Dasu, aged 29 years.
H.No. 53-1-384, JK Tailors Street,
Near ROM Church, Kristurajapuram,
Vijayawada urban - 520008.
Krishna District, A.P. Implead Petitioner/Proposed respondent No.4
CBWTF Association of AP, Rep. by its Secretary Mr. T. Anil Kumar, Having its office at 29/2, 29/1, Shop No.4 and 5, Ashirvad Complex, Near Bishop Azaraiah High School, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
...Respondent/Writ Petitioner AND
2. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi.
3. Central Pollution Control Board, Rep., by its Member Secretary Having its office situated at Parivesh Bhavan, East Arjun Nagar Delhi-110032.
4. Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Head Office, API 1C Colony, Beside Rythu Bazar Vijayawada - 520007 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated m the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the implead petitioner as the proposed respondent No.4 herein in the main writ petition in W.P. No. 6365/2025 on the file of Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.
I.A.No, 3 of 2025;
Between:
M/s. Sree Venkateswara Bio-Management systems Rep. by its Managing partner Smt. M. Kavitha, W/o Murali Krishna D.No.20-20.3'^'^ Floor, Naidu Buildings, Near Raghava Theatre, Chittoor, Chittoor District.
Implead Petitioner/Proposed respondent No.5 CBWTF Association of AP, Rep. by its Secretary Mr. T, Anii Komar, Having its office at 29/2, 29/1, Shop No.4 and 5, Ashirvad Compiex Near Bishop Azaraiah High School, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
...Respondent/Writ Petitioner AMD
2. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi.
3. Central Pollution Control Board, Rep., by its Member Secretary Having its office situated at Parivesh Bhavan, East Arjun Nagar Delhi-110032.
4. Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Head Office, API 1C Colony, Beside Rythu Bazar Vijayawada -
520007
5. Gaddam Aravind, Law Student & Environment Activist , S/o. G.V. Ramana Dasu, aged 29 years, H.No. 53-1-384, JK Tailors Street, Near RCM Church, Kristurajapuram, Vijayawada urban - 520008.
Krishna District, A.P. Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the implead petitioner as the proposed respondent No.5 herein in the main writ petition in W.P. No. 6365/2025 on the file of Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.
r WRIT PETITION NO: 6365 OF 2025 Between:
M/s. CBWTF Association of AP, Rep. by its Secretary Mr. T. Anil Kumar, Having its office at 29/2, 29/1, Shop No.4 and 5, Ashirvad Complex, Near Bishop Azaraiah High School, Vijayawada, Krishna District ...Petitioner AND
1. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi.
2. Central Pollution Control Board, Rep., by its Member Secretary Having its office situated at Parivesh Bhavan, East Arjun Nagar Delhi-110032.
3. Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Head Office, API 1C Colony, Beside Rythu Bazar Vijayawada -
520007 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the A.P. State Pollution Control Board, the 3rd Respondent herein in considering the representation dated 29.01.2025 submitted by the Petitioner to the Chairman, APPCB and also the Respondent No.3, is detrimental to the interests of the members of the petitioner Association, apart from being arbitrary, illegal, highhanded, capricious and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner and its members under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 apart from being ultravires of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 and also the statutory guidelines of Central Pollution Control Board 2016, various orders of this Honourable Court as well as that of the Honourable National Green Tribunal and the principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently declare that the methodology sought to be adapted by the 2nd respondent is without any scientific basis, without substance while directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in its letter and spirit and follow the spirit of the Revised Guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board for Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities under the power vested in it by the Bio Medical Waste Management Rules. 2016 the amendments from time to time issued thereunder as issued in exercise of the powers vested in the State in the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the amendments from time to time issued thereunder while directing the respondents not to proceed to propose establishment of new facilities without reference of a full- fledged comprehensive Gap Analysis Report. lA NO: 1 OF 2n2fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.01.2025 to the 2nd and 3rd respondents without reference to any new methodology other than the one that is adopted all over the country as per the law relating thereto while considering the reports relating to the Gap Analysis Study conducted by the 3rd respondent after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the stake hoider, before any acceptance for estabiishment or for operations of any new bio medicai waste treatment faciiity in the state of Andhra Pradesh is granted pending disposai of the above writ petition.
c Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y SRINIVAS MURTHY, LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTED FOR SRI P VENKAIAH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2: SRI P PONNA RAO (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI YELISETTI SOMARAJU, (SC FOR AP. POLLURI CONTRAOL BOARD) The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010114612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3483] (Special Original Jurisdiction) I.AJ^os,2&3of2025 in/and WRIT PETITION NO: 6365/2025 Between:
...PETITIONER M/s. CBWTF Association of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Mr. T. Anil Kumar.
AND Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate ...RESPONDENT(S) Change, New Delhi and others.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel representing P.Venkaiah Naidu, learned counsel Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Learned Standing counsel for central Government
2. Sri Yelisetti Somaraju, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.Polluri Control Board.
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE PC:
Inaction of respondent no.3- Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (for short, 'APSPCB'), in considering the representation dated 29.01.2025 M.^(p.Jio.6365 of2025 2 submitted by the petitioner society is questioned being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner, ultra vires of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, statutory guidelines of Central Pollution Control Board (for short, 'CPCB'), 2016 and orders of this Court as well as National Green Tribunal.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, it is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 2001, with twelve members, who are operating the Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities (for short, 'CBWTFs') and providing awareness, knowledge and guidance to proper management of bio medical waste throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh is one of its objects. That the State Pollution Control Board is required to conduct gap analysis with reference to coverage area of the Bio medical waste generation and also projected over a period of 10 years and adequacy of existing treatment facility of the CBWTF in each coverage area of radius 75 kms. and if it is found that any coverage area requires additional treatment capacity, action may be initiated for allowing new CBWTF in that locality without interfering with the coverage area of the existing CBWTF and beds covered by existing CBWTF.
9ca<^'KCJ '.W(PMo.6365 of2025 3 It is the further case that when respondent no.3-APSPCB contemplated to issue permission to new CBMWTFs without conducting gap analysis study, several writ petitions came to be filed before this Court and National Green Tribunal, wherein the respondent no.3 was directed not to grant permissions to new CBMWTFs without conducting gap analysis. Pursuantly, the respondent no.3 entrusted the said work to M/s.Andhra Pradesh Environment Management Corporation Limited (APEMCL), which inturn outsourced couple of consultants and obtained reports. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 constituted a committee and made several changes to the reports to make it appear that no existing facility in the state has adequate capacity to treat waste generated in the coverage area. That as the reports so prepared were sent back by CPCB with remarks, respondent no.3 again conducted gap analysis study as per remarks.
which, however, was found to be defective by CPCB and as such respondent no.3 was asked to submit a fresh report.
It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2-CPCB, in a unilateral fashion and without putting it for any detailed and elaborate debate.
had adopted a new methodology, contrary to its notified methods, and is directing to conducting gap analysis studies, based on the study report of South-
East Asian region, the transparency and veracity of which is unknown. Further, 'KC3<^<RC3 .W(PMo.636S of2025 4 vide letter dated 21.01.2025,the CPCB directed respondent no.3 to consider the recommendations of CPCB on gap analysis report before concluding on requirement of new CBWTFs. Moreover, MoEF & CC had addressed a letter dated 31.07.2024 stating that gap analysis report shall be prepared and submitted to and CPCB for comments before establishment new CBWTFs.
It is the further case that notwithstanding such directions, as respondent no.3 was contemplating to accord permission to new CBMWTFs, the petitioner submitted representation to respondent nos.2 and 3 bringing to their notice the deviations and deficiencies in the modified gap analysis report and requested respondent no.3-APPCB to adhere guidelines for CBWTFs and to the recommendations given by the CPCB while considering establishment of new CBMWTFs. Inaction thereof, had led to filing of this writ petition.
3. Heard Sri K Srinivasa Murthy, learned senior counsel, representing Sri P.Venkaiah Naidu, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Yeiisetti Somaraju, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Pollution control Board.
4. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
U.^(p.^o.636S of2025 5
5. The grievance of the petitioner society is twofold. One is switching on to new methodology by CPCB for conducting gap analysis study based on the study report of South-East Asian region, instead of following old methodology, and the other is that respondent no.3 is not considering its representation dated 29.01.2025 submitted to consider the gap analysis report without reference to any new methodology other than the one that was adopted all over the country.
6. At the outset, it is needful to note that inadequate number of treatment facilities and treatment facilities with inadequate capacity to treat the waste generated may result in unscientific disposal of bio-medical waste to the detriment of public health. The guidelines and the methodology for conducting gap analysis must aim to ensure effective treatment of bio medical waste for protection of environment and public health. Therefore, the concerned Pollution Control Boards must always strive to explore the new methods and modalities to narrow down the gaps, if any, for ensuring compliance of the object of guidelines. Any attempt to curtail them from switching on to new methodology based on studies and adopting the methods followed by the nations across the globe would entail derailment of State's Constitutional obligation for providing pollution free environment and protection of natural environmental resources.
.W(p.m6365of2025 6
7. It is fairly settled that, generally, courts are hesitant to interfere with decisions that require specialized knowledge or expertise, especially those made by expert bodies or government agencies. This principle of judicial restraint stems from the understanding that courts may lack the specific technical or professional expertise necessary to adequately review such decisions.
Interference is usually only warranted when there's clear evidence of illegality.
arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety.
8. The Central as well as State Pollution Control Boards will be manned with experts in the relevant field and naturally they take decisions based on overall study done by experts in the field across the globe compatible with that existed in India. This Court did not find any patent illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety in switching on the new methodology by Central Pollution Control Board and advising the State Control Boards to consider the recommendations made by them on gap analysis report before concluding the requirement of new CBWTFs.
9. Further, it is fairly settled that unless an authority is obligated under any law or regulation explicitly requiring it to consider and act on the representation.
Courts would not direct to do so. Except alleging inaction, the petitioner could JiCJelfRC] .W(P.!Ko.6365 of2025 7 not figure out any such law or regulation that obligates respondent no.3 to consider and act on the representation.
10. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition lacks merit and the same deserves dismissal.
11. In view of the discussion held supra and the conclusion arrived at by us and further as the W.P.(PIL) No.l25 of 2024 has been closed, it is needless to pass orders on I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2005 filed for impleadment of proposed respondent nos. 4 &. 5 and they are liable to be closed.
12. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2025 are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- M.S.V.NAVEEN CHANDRA
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SE N OFFICER
To,
1.
One CC to SRI. P. VENKAIAH NAIDU Advocate [OPUC]
2. One CC to SRI. P. PONNA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to SRI YELISETTI SOMARAJU, (SC FOR AP. POLLURI CONTRAOL BOARD)
4. Three C.D.Copies nm HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 X 05 if Curie*'^ Secuon ORDER ^^gSPATC;^^^^ LAlioS;2&3of2025 In/and WP.No.6365 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS