Alternative Remedy No Bar To Writ Petition When Order Is Challenged On Grounds Of Lack Of Jurisdiction: Andhra Pradesh High Court

AP High Court Rules on Writ Petitions Amidst Alternative Remedies in Bio-Medical Waste Facility Dispute

HYDERABAD - The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling on the scope of writ jurisdiction, has held that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar the court from entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when the challenged order is alleged to be wholly without jurisdiction.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam overruled the preliminary objection raised by the respondents against the maintainability of writ petitions filed by two prospective bio-medical waste treatment facilities. The Court decided to examine the case on merits, emphasizing that challenges to an authority's inherent jurisdiction are an exception to the self-imposed rule of exhausting alternative remedies.

Background of the Dispute

The case involves two petitioners, Sree Venkateswara Bio Management Systems and M/s. Rayalaseema Environ Care, who were granted 'Consent for Establishment' (CFE) by the A.P. Pollution Control Board (APPCB) to set up new Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facilities (CBWTF). This decision was challenged by existing operators, including AWM Consulting Limited.

Initially, the APPCB, upon representation from an existing operator, cancelled the CFE granted to Sree Venkateswara Bio Management Systems. However, the Board later revoked this cancellation on May 24, 2023, and restored the CFE. This restoration order, passed under the Water Act and Air Act, was subsequently challenged by the existing operators before the Special Chief Secretary, Department of Environment, who is the appellate authority under the Bio-Medical Waste Management (BWM) Rules, 2016.

The appellate authority, in its order dated April 4, 2024, directed the APPCB to conduct a fresh 'gap analysis' and held that the CFE was not a valid authorization under the BWM Rules, 2016. The petitioners challenged this appellate order in the High Court.

Core Arguments

Petitioner's Stance: Lack of Jurisdiction

Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, counsel for the petitioners, argued that the appellate authority's order was fundamentally void for lack of jurisdiction. He contended that:

- The challenged order (revocation of CFE cancellation) was passed under the Water Act and Air Act, not the BWM Rules. Therefore, an appeal under the BWM Rules was not maintainable.

- The appeal was filed with a delay of 298 days, far beyond the 30-day limitation period prescribed by Rule 16 of the BWM Rules, without any application for condonation of delay.

- A court cannot confer jurisdiction on an authority that does not statutorily possess it.

Respondent's Stance: Alternative Remedy

The respondents argued that the writ petitions should be dismissed as the petitioners had an effective alternative remedy to approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT) under Sections 14 and 16 of the NGT Act, 2010.

Court’s Examination of Jurisdiction and Alternative Remedy

The High Court meticulously analyzed the doctrine of alternative remedy, referencing landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and Godrej Sara Lee Limited vs. Excise and Taxation Officer .

The Bench reiterated that the rule requiring exhaustion of statutory remedies is "a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law." It identified key exceptions where a High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction despite an available alternative remedy:

1. For the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

2. In cases of violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. Where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.

4. When the vires of an Act is challenged.

The Court observed:

"The ground of challenge to the impugned appellate order is on the lack of inherent jurisdiction in the appellate authority and the order being null and void for want of jurisdiction... The questions raised in our view go to the very jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to entertain and decide the appeal."

Addressing the respondent's reliance on the NGT Act, the Court noted that it was debatable whether an appeal against the specific order would lie under Section 16 of the Act. However, it concluded that even if such a remedy existed, it would not operate as an absolute bar to entertaining the writ petition, given the serious jurisdictional questions raised.

Final Decision and Implications

Overruling the preliminary objection, the High Court decided to entertain the writ petitions to examine the jurisdictional challenges on merits. The Court has posted the matter for further hearing on September 2, 2025, and allowed the parties to file additional affidavits.

This judgment reinforces the principle that jurisdictional errors by administrative or quasi-judicial bodies can be directly challenged before a High Court under its writ powers, ensuring a vital check against authorities acting beyond their statutory mandate.