Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition preferred by the petitioners, a Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBMWTF), and its Director challenging an order issued by the Senior Special Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Health and Family Welfare Department, a single-judge bench comprising of Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya,* J., dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned order, citing administrative discretion and lack of rule contravention as grounds for the decision.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioners challenged an order issued by the Senior Special Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 11-08-2023, reallocating the assignment of CBMWTFs, changing the criteria for lifting, transportation, treatment, and disposal of bio-medical waste based on distance. It tags health facilities with existing CBMWTF facilities, valid from August 18, 2023, for six months, subject to review.
The petitioners alleged that the reallocation violates Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, specifically Rule 7(3), regarding the distance criteria and bed capacity. It was argued that the reallocation favors respondent 7, causing disparity and exceeding its permissible capacity. The respondent 7 contested, claiming valid authorization, adherence to rules, and capacity to handle the additional waste. The WBPCB stated both parties violated pollution norms, operating beyond sanctioned bed capacities.
Moot Point
-
Whether the reallocation order violates Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016?
-
Whether the distance criteria applicable to “operators” or only to “occupiers” as per Rule 7(3)?
-
Does the reallocation lead to a disparity and exceed the permissible capacity of Respondent No. 7?
-
Is the order by the authorities within administrative discretion?
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the definitions and duties under the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016. The Court emphasised the distinction between “occupier” and “operator” and the restrictions on establishing on-site treatment facilities within 75 kms for “occupiers.” The Court observed that the impugned order is seen as an administrative decision to accommodate additional facilities and experimental for six months.
The Court noted the discretion of authorities to allocate beds and acknowledged the distance criteria in favor of respondent 7. The Court opined that the petitioners’ grievance of unequal bed allocation is deemed a private dispute and not a legal violation. The Court opined that the respondent 7’s allocation is justified based on distance criteria and decisions of the High-Powered Committee. While addressing the excess bed allocation by both parties, the Court found no palpable illegality, discrimination, or violation of legal rights in the reallocation.
The Court upheld the impugned order, considering it an administrative decision within the authorities’ discretion. The Court dismissed the petition without costs, stating the petitioner lacks standing to challenge business allocations under the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016.
Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned order, stating that the same falls within administrative discretion, and therefore there is no legal grounds for judicial interference. The petition is disposed of accordingly, without costs.
[Greentech Environ Management (P) Ltd. v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 366, order dated 16-01-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mrs. Reshmi Ghosh, Ms. Barnali, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Ms. Kalpit Paul, Counsel for the State
Mr. N.C. Bihani, Mr. S. Mukherjee, Counsel for the WBPCB
Ms. Sutapa Sanyal, Mr. Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee, Mr. Ritesh Kumar Ganguly, Ms. Utsa Podder, Counsel for the Respondent 7
Mr. Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar, Mr. Aditya Kanodia, Counsel for the SNG Envirosolution (P) Ltd.
