The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the newly adopted Gap Analysis Method for treatment of bio-medical waste related to Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition against inaction of Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board in considering the representation 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, 2016 and orders of this Court as well as National Green Tribunal.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed, ".....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."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Y. Srinivasa Murthy, while the Respondent State was represented by Standing Counsel.

Facts of the Case

The case of the Petitioner was that, it is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 2001, with twelve members, who were operating the Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities and providing awareness, knowledge and guidance to proper management of bio medical waste throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh was one of its objects. The State Pollution Control Board was required to conduct gap analysis with reference to coverage area of the Biomedical 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.

It was further the case that when APSPCB contemplated to issue permission to new CBMWTFs without conducting gap analysis study, several Writ Petitions were filed before the Court and National Green Tribunal, wherein the Respondent No. 3 was directed not to grant permissions to new CBMWTFs without conducting gap analysis. Pursuant to the same, the Respondent No.3 entrusted the said work to M/s. Andhra Pradesh Environment Management Corporation Limited (APEMCL), which in turn outsourced a couple of consultants and obtained reports.

The grievance of the Petitioner was twofold. One was 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 was that Respondent no.3 was not considering its representation to consider the gap analysis report without reference to any new methodology other than the one that was adopted all over the country.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted 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," the Court observed.

Noting that generally, courts are hesitant to interfere with decisions that require specialized knowledge or expertise, especially those made by expert bodies or government agencies, the Court further observed, "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."

The Court stressed that 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 not figure out any such law or regulation that obligates respondent no.3 to consider and act on the representation," the Court pointed out.

The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: M/s. CBWTF Association of Andhra Pradesh vs. Union of India

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Y. Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate P. Venkaiah Naidu

Respondent- Standing Counsel for Central Government, Standing Counsel for A.P. Polluri Control Board. Yelisetti Somaraju

Click here to read/ download Order












Andhra Pradesh High CourtChief Justice Dhiraj Singh ThakurJustice Ravi Cheemalapati

Sheetal Joon