Mumbai Waste Mgt.Ltd vs Sec.Of Enviornment,Govt.Of India & Ors

2. The petitioner-Mumbai Waste Management Ltd. (shortly referred to as ‘MWM’) in writ petition No.3953/2011 out of which present SLP arises was issued the letter of award to collect, treat, recycle, reprocess, store and dispose of hazardous waste from the area allotted to the petitioner. Similarly, the respondent No.5 SMS Infrastructure Ltd. was also issued the letter of consent on 27.10.2005 for treatment, storage and disposal facility of hazardous waste from the area allotted to respondent No.5. The areas were determined upon certain geographical criteria. The petitioner - MWM has been allotted the Westernmost Belt of Maharashtra consisting of districts of Thane, Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindudurg outside Bombay. Similarly, respondent No.5 - SMS had been given other districts to deal with waste management facilities. Since the petitioner - MWM was issued the letter of award for the years prior to respondent No.5, the petitioner MWM felt aggrieved as it curtailed some part of their area of operation as part of those areas were given to respondent No.5 - SMS since it offered more facilities for treatment of hazardous waste by the government.

4. The principal ground of challenge of the Petitioner-MWM is that under the rules of 2005 in force, the consent to operate was not materially changed under the new rules of 2008 under which the government merely sought to re-fix the territorial area of operation through the orders of respondent No.2. The petitioner-MWM assailed the order of curtailment essentially on the ground that on 24.9.2008, the Central Government through respondent No.4 promulgated new rules being Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 and under those new rules respondent No.2 was denuded of the power to fix/re-fix the territorial area of operation of the waste management facilities. The petitioner contended that under 2008 rules respondent No.2 is only the monitoring authority to the facilities set up but not to allocate/re- allocate the territorial jurisdiction.

12. There is yet another reason not to enter into this aspect as the High Court has clearly observed that the petitioner has not challenged the orders of respondent No.2 dated December 11, 2008 and March 9, 2009 or order of respondent No.4. The petitioner had merely challenged the order of the appellate authority dated January 29, 2011 and the appellate authority had clearly observed and rightly so that it had no jurisdiction to determine the question as to whether respondent No.2 - Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and respondent No.4 - Department of Environment, Government of Maharashtra had jurisdiction to allocate territory for conducting the business of waste management. In that view of the matter, we do not think it appropriate to adjudicate and record a finding in regard to the competence and authority of respondent No.2 and respondent No.4. Nevertheless, we find no reason to entertain these special leave petitions by which the High Court had refused to entertain the writ petition assailing the order of the appellate authority which in view of the order of respondent No. 2 and respondent No.4 was pleased to hold that the petitioner will have to confine its area of operation to the area of those territories for which an order had been passed in its favour and the area which was allotted to respondent No.5 – SMS will not be encroached by the petitioner.

14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find no substance in these special leave petitions and consequently they are dismissed.

…………………………………J (Gyan Sudha Misra) …………………………………J (J. Chelameswar) New Delhi, May 2, 2013