CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.3981 OF 2005 ******* In the matter of an application under section 482 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* BUDHA INSTITUTE OF DENTAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL------ --PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR------OPP.PARTY ******* FOR THE PETITIONER : M/S CHANDRA SHEKHAR & L.B. SINGH FOR OPP.PARTY NO.2 : Mr. shivendra Kishore FOR THE STATE : Mr. Atul Chandra ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Atul Chandra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This is a case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 20th January, 2004 in Complaint Case no. 165M 2 of 2004, Trial no. 1786 of 2004 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, taking cognizance under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a Dental College and Hospital, against whom the opposite party no.2 filed Complaint Case no. 165 of 2004 alleging violation of Rule 8 of Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 1998. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly challenged the complaint petition as well as the impugned order on the ground that there was no application of Rule 8 against the petitioner as it comes under the exceptional clause as mentioned in Sub-rule 8 and whenever it was required due application was submitted before the Pollution Control Board, opposite party no.2 and authorization was granted. The learned counsel further placed reliance of famous Bhajan Lal‟s case (A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604). On the other hand, learned counsel representing the opposite party also placed reliance upon the same decision of the Apex Court but according to them Rule 8 of Bio Medical 3 Waste (Management and Handling) Rules was well applicable against the petitioner. 5. In view of the above, very simple question of law is involved in this case which is being dealt with hereunder. Rule 3.8 of the Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 reads as such: “ „Occupier‟ in relation to any institution generating bio-medical waste, which includes hospital, nursing home, clinic, dispensary, veterinary institution, animal house, pathological laboratory, blood bank by whatever name called, means a person who has control over that institution and/or its premises” 6. From the above it appears that the term “occupier” includes as many as eight items including hospital at serial no.1. Undisputedly petitioner is a hospital. 7. Rule 8 of the Bio-medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 reads as such: “8. Authorisation – (1) Every occupier of an institution generating, collecting, receiving, storing, transporting, treating, disposing and/or handling bio-medical waste in any other manner, except such occupier of clinics, dispensaries, pathological laboratories, blood banks providing treatment/service to less than 1000 (one thousand) patients per month, 4 shall make an application in Form 1 to the prescribed authority for grant of authorization. (2) Every operator of a bio-medical waste facility shall make an application in Form 1 to the prescribed authority for grant of authorization. (3) Every application in Form 1 for grant of authorization shall be accompanied by a fee as may be prescribed by the Government of the State or Union Territory (4) The authorization to operate a facility shall be issued in Form IV, subject to conditions laid therein and such other condition, as the prescribed authority, may consider it necessary.” 8. Exceptional clause of sub-rule 1 of Rule 8, stated above, includes only four items out of eight which finds place in Rule 3 sub-rule 8 and in Rule 8 the four such excluded items are hospital, nursing home, veterinary institution and animal house which are figuring at serial 1, 2, 5 and 6. In Rule 3 Sub-rule 8 non-inclusion of such items has got significance. 9. From the plain reading of the above provisions, it is crystal clear that except those specifically mentioned in exceptional clause of Rule 8 are to be governed under main rule and are bound to take authorization, as provided. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is 5 a hospital and is to be guided by the above Rules. Thus, in view of the provisions, above mentioned, the petitioner hospital was bound to obtain authorization in absence whereof, prima facie, penal clause comes into play. Accordingly, finding no merit in this application, it is hereby dismissed. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) Patna High Court, The 20th August, 2010. AAhmad/(NAFR)