Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati dismissed a writ petition challenging the adoption of a revised methodology for gap analysis studies regarding the establishment of Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facilities (CBMWTFs) in the state. The Court held that the new methodology adopted by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) did not suffer from any patent illegality or arbitrariness and found no procedural impropriety in the decision-making process. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and closed the interlocutory applications.

The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 2001, comprises twelve members operating Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities (CBWTFs) across Andhra Pradesh. The primary objective of the society includes promoting proper management of biomedical waste.

Also Read: Courts Are Not As Fragile As Flowers To Wither And Wilt | Supreme Court Declines Contempt Action Over Scandalous Remarks But Warns That Hate Speech Must Be Dealt With An Iron Hand

The core grievance raised in the writ petition related to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (APSPCB), referred to as respondent no.3, to permit new CBMWTFs without conducting a comprehensive and guideline-compliant gap analysis. The petitioner contended that the APSPCB, in its consideration of establishing new CBMWTFs, failed to adhere to the statutory procedure and methodology as originally notified.

Previously, in response to judicial directions from both the High Court and the National Green Tribunal, respondent no.3 had commissioned the Andhra Pradesh Environment Management Corporation Limited (APEMCL) to conduct a gap analysis. APEMCL, in turn, outsourced consultants to prepare reports. Subsequently, respondent no.3 constituted a committee which altered the reports, purportedly to create an impression that none of the existing CBWTFs had adequate capacity. These revised reports were returned by the CPCB with remarks requiring correction.

Upon the CPCB’s directives, respondent no.3 re-conducted the gap analysis, incorporating the suggested modifications. However, this second report was also deemed defective by the CPCB. Consequently, respondent no.3 was instructed to submit a fresh report based on CPCB’s parameters.

Simultaneously, the CPCB adopted a new methodology for gap analysis, derived from a South-East Asian regional study. This change, according to the petitioner, was not subjected to any transparent or consultative process and deviated from the CPCB’s own previously notified methods. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), through its letter dated 31.07.2024, stated that any new CBMWTF could only be established after a proper gap analysis, reviewed and commented upon by the CPCB.

The petitioner, in its representation dated 29.01.2025 to respondent nos.2 and 3, pointed out the alleged deficiencies and non-compliance in the modified gap analysis report. It also urged adherence to statutory guidelines and the CPCB’s recommendations. Inaction on this representation led to the filing of the present writ petition.

The Court observed: “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.” It recorded that: “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.”

It further stated: “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.”

The Bench reflected on the constitutional obligations of the State, recording: “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.”

On the matter of judicial review, the Court stated: “Generally, courts are hesitant to interfere with decisions that require specialized knowledge or expertise, especially those made by expert bodies or government agencies.” It added: “Interference is usually only warranted when there's clear evidence of illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety.”

Regarding the specific decision under challenge, the Court recorded: “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.”

In response to the claim of inaction on the petitioner’s representation, the Court remarked: “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.” It found that the petitioner “could not figure out any such law or regulation that obligates respondent no.3 to consider and act on the representation.”

Also Read: Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses PIL Against Panchayat Elections In Scheduled Areas | Says Plea Lacks Bona Fide Intent And Courts Cannot Be Used For Oblique Purposes

The Court held that the writ petition lacked merit and recorded: “In the above view of the matter, the writ petition lacks merit and the same deserves dismissal.”

The Bench noted that, as “the W.P.(PIL) No.125 of 2024 has been closed,” it was unnecessary to pass any orders on “I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2005 filed for impleadment of proposed respondent nos. 4 & 5,” and declared that “they are liable to be closed.”

It further declared: “Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2025 are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.” Concluding the matter, the Court directed: “Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel representing P. Venkaiah Naidu, learned counsel
For the Respondents: Learned Standing Counsel for Central Government; Sri Yelisetti Somaraju, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Case Title: M/s. CBWTF Association of Andhra Pradesh v. Union of India & Ors.

Neutral Citation: APHC010114612025

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 6365 of 2025

Bench: Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Chief Justice; Justice Ravi Cheemalapati

[Read/Download order]