The court held that the petitioner has the right to challenge relocation recommendations based on potential harm to its interests, reinforcing the need for a thorough review process under environmental laws.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri S. V. S. S. Sivaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Meka Rahul Chowdary, learned counsel for the 5th respondent and Sri Y. Soma Raju, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudge and declare the recommendations of the 3rd respondent in its 263rd meeting dated 30.05.2025 vide its minutes dated 03.06.2025 to issue Standard Terms of Reference (ToR) to the 5th respondent for relocation of its Bio Medical Waste Treatment Facility from Dharmavarappadu Thanda, Jaggayapeta Mandal, NTR District (Unit One) to Industrial Development Area (IDA), Kondapalli, NTR District, as illegal, arbitrary, irrational without jurisdiction, contrary to the Bio Medical Waste Management Rules 2016 (in short ‘Waste Management Rules 2016’), the Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities 2025 (in short ‘Revised Guidelines 2025’) as also The Environment Protection Act, 1986, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control Pollution Act) 1981, besides being violation of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

I. Facts:

3. The petitioner – M/s. Hygiene Biomed Services, Vijayawada, a Proprietor concern intended to establish a Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment Facility (in short ‘CBMWTF’) and purchased an extent of land admeasuring Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.112-1, Loya village, G. Kondur Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh for a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- and obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) vide Proceedings in Order No. SEIAA/AP/KRI/IND/08/2017/384-421, dated 22.08.2020, valid for 7 years. The subsequent process of examining feasibility for establishment of the facility was kept under hold by citing pendency of Gap Analysis Report (GAR).

4. The petitioner’s case is that the 5^th respondent – M/s. Safe Environ Private Limited, represented by its Director, an existing CBMWTF operator, at Sy.No.164/1A, Dharmavarapupadu Thanda village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District (in short ‘the Unit one’) and having its another unit at S.No.4 A&B Chinakakani village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, consistently opposed the establishment of new facilities, claiming sufficiency of existing facility. The 5^th respondent obstructed the new applications for initiating proceedings before different Forums, though several irregularities and violations itself were on the part of the 5th respondent, viz., unauthorized installation and enhancement of incinerator capacities at its Units of Guntur and Krishna and it enhanced Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) capacities without requisite approvals under the Environment Protection Act, Air Act, Water Act, BMW Rules and Guidelines. The petitioner’s case is that the 5th respondent was initially permitted for establishment of CBMWTF with 70 kg/hr incinerator capacity at Guntur, but on 07.05.2007 the 5th respondent installed a 200 kg/hr incinerator without obtaining prior approval and also so reflected it in subsequent Consent for Operations (CTOs). Similarly, in CTO of Krishna Facility on 15.11.2006 Consent to Establish (CTE) application was made with installed capacity of incinerator at 70 kg/hr which was approved in 2007 with project cost of Rs.45 lakhs. But in the year 2009, in his CTO application, the 5th respondent mentioned the total treatable waste capacity of the unit as 270 kg/hr contrary to its CTE application approved for 70 kg/hr capacity. The Environmental Engineer also mentioned the incinerator capacity as 270 kg/hr in his report dated 30.11.2009 despite inspection. Further, in CTO renewal dated 26.05.2014 the 5^th respondent mentioned the incinerator capacity as 100 kg/hr alternated between 270 kg/hr and 100 kg/hr (2009, 2011, 2014, 2017 renewals) which show the manipulations. In 2018, the 5^th respondent sought correction of its CTO stating that the incinerat