AP High Court dismisses plea challenging new Bio-Medical Waste Analysis Method
Visakhapatnam: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the newly adopted method for conducting gap analysis of Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities (CBWTFs) in the state. The Court held that such matters fall under the expertise of specialised bodies, and judicial interference should be limited.
Pointing out that such cases require specialized knowledge or expertise, especially those made by expert bodies or government agencies, the bench added, “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.” The petition was filed by a registered society comprising twelve members who operate CBWTFs across Andhra Pradesh and work to raise awareness about proper biomedical waste management.
The petitioners argued that the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) was required to conduct a gap analysis to assess the treatment capacity of existing CBWTFs over a projected ten-year period. This would help determine if new facilities were needed in any area, without affecting the coverage area of existing ones. However, the petitioners claimed that APPCB was moving ahead to permit new CBWTFs without completing a proper gap analysis, prompting several legal challenges in the past.
In response, APPCB had assigned the gap analysis task to the Andhra Pradesh Environment Management Corporation Limited (APEMCL), which hired consultants to prepare reports. These reports were later revised by a committee set up by APPCB. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) returned the reports with comments, noting deficiencies. Although a revised study was carried out, the CPCB again found it unsatisfactory and asked for a fresh report.
The petitioners also contended that CPCB had adopted a new method for gap analysis, based on a study from the South-East Asian region, without public consultation and contrary to earlier approved guidelines. They referred to official letters from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and CPCB, which required the gap analysis reports to be reviewed and approved by CPCB before granting permission for new CBWTFs. Despite this, the petitioners claimed that APPCB was still planning to approve new facilities, ignoring the deviations in the updated gap analysis.
The society had submitted representations to CPCB and APPCB highlighting these issues, but received no satisfactory response, leading them to file the writ petition. 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 APPCB 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.
After considering the submissions, a division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed, “It is needful to note that an 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 the State’s Constitutional obligation for providing a pollution-free environment and protection of natural environmental resources,” the court further added.
Finally the court dismissed the petition, pointing out that the 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.
To view the order, click on the link below:
