SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 667

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ.
Sree Venkateswara Bio Management Systems - Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Environment, Forest, Science and Technology and others - Respondents.
W.P. Nos.10643 OF 2024 & 11929 OF 2024
Decided On : 18-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram
For the Respondent: Gov., Pleader, Standing counsel, Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel

Court confirmed the mandatory requirement of gap analysis for the establishment of new biomedical waste facilities, emphasizing jurisdictional limitations on appellate authority and the importance of timely appeals.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 - Writ petitions challenging orders made by environmental authorities regarding Consent for Establishment and its cancellation - Petitioner aggrieved by cancellation order based on gap analysis; second order reinstating initial consent was disputed by other CBWTF facility - Court ruled the gap analysis is mandatory and any appeal must be timely filed as per the rules - Jurisdiction issues raised regarding appellate authority and maintainability under climate laws were considered - Preliminary objections regarding alternative remedies were overruled. (Paras 10, 14, 28, 32, 44)

Table of Content
1. application process for c.b.w.t.f establishment (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. revocation and extension of cfe validity (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11)
3. appeal against cancellation orders (Para 12 , 14 , 17 , 18)
4. jurisdictional issues in appeals (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. preliminary objections to maintainability (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
6. writ petition maintainability exceptions (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 31)
7. grounds for consideration of writ petitions (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
8. order and future proceedings (Para 46 , 47)

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for State respondents, Sri Y. Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- A.P.Pollution Control Board and Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel, representing Mr. Venkat Subbaiah Pogula, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent(s) in both the writ petitions.

2. Writ Petition No.10643 of 2024 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.04.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent-the Special Chief Secretary, Department of Environment, Forest Science and Technology, Secretariat, Velagapudi in Appeal No.5 of 2024.

3. Writ Petition No.11929 of 2024 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.04.2024, passed by the 1st respondent-the Special Chief Secretary, Department of Environment, Forest Science and Technology, Secretariat, Velagapudi in Appeal No.4 of 2024.

-

I. Facts in W.P.No.10643 of 2024:

4. The facts as per the petitioner’s case are that the petitioner a prospective entrepreneur intending to establish a Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment Facility (in short C.B.W.T.F) in Chittoor District under the name and style, M/s. Sree Venkateswara Bio Management Services, submitted an application dated 04.10.2019 to obtain Consent for Establishment (CFE) to A.P. Pollution Control Board-respondent No.3 (in short, the Board). While the application was under process, the Environmental Clearance (EC) was granted vide order dated 28.06.2021. On 19.07.2021, a letter was addressed to 3rd respondent to consider the application for C.F.E in view of the EC granted. The 3rd respondent issued C.F.E on 14.09.2021 to establish the treatment facility for collection, transport, treatment and scientific disposal of Bio-Medical Waste Generated in the health care establishments by duly allotting Chittoor Revenue Division and Mandapalle Revenue Division with a total bed strength of 7034.

5. The 4th respondent-AWM Consulting Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Tirupati was also allotted a bed strength of 11,002 and 289 HCFs duly satisfying the conditions of allocation of 10,000 beds to the existing CBWT. The petitioner’s case is that the proposed facility of the petitioner is 81 kms away from the existing facility handled by the respondent No.4 and falls within the zone of Annamayya District where such other facility is not existing.

-

6. The 4th respondent however, made a representation dated 14.09.2021 to the 3rd respondent. Board contending that the gap analysis report was not conducted while granting CFE to the petitioner and that the new facility would be established within 75 kilometers radius. The actual bed strength of the respondent No.4 was only 9374. 3587 beds were inactive. The 4th respondent contended that their facility had the capacity to accommodate additional waste treatment and so permitting new facility was not feasible and viable. On such representation of 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent cancelled the petitioner’s CFE vide cancellation order dated 27.09.2021.

7. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the cancellation order submitted a representation dated 08.05.2023 for revocation of the cancellation order inter alia on the grounds that, the gap analysis study could not be the sole criteria to cancel CFE and as per the report of the District Medical and Health Officer dated 21.09.2021, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top