Writ jurisdiction can be denied if an alternative statutory remedy exists, and suppression of material facts must significantly impact the case's adjudication.

Aniruddha Roy, J.

FACTS:

1. I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025 is an interlocutory application taken out by the respondent No.9 in the writ petition, Unique Universal Bio-Waste LLP (for short Unique Universal), inter alia, praying for following relief :

“Under the premises as aforesaid Your Lordship would graciously be pleased to pass an order dismissing the instant Writ Petition as not maintainable and pass such further order and/or orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper so as to protect the right and interest of the respondent No.9;

And

Your petitioner prays for such Orders and/or further orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

2. Pursuant to the direction made by the Coordinate Bench, the writ petitioners were directed to file affidavit-in-opposition to the said application and the respondent No.9/applicant (for short the applicant) was directed to file its affidavit-in-reply. Accordingly, the parties have filed and exchanged their respective affidavits. The Coordinate Bench also directed the respondents, which includes the applicant to file affidavit-in-opposition in the writ petition and the writ petitioners to file affidavit-in-reply thereto.

3. Since the applicant being the respondent No.9 in the writ petition has taken out the instant application, it has not filed affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition, as yet. The applicant has also filed a written notes in this application.

4. The facts which are inescapable for adjudication of the instant application are only narrated.

5. This is the second round of writ litigation by the writ petitioners. The first writ petitioner herein (for short Greenzen) is engaged in the business of dealing with Bio-Medical Waste Disposals, which are principally waste management of primary Bio-Medical Wastes. Greenzen claims to be an operator of a Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBNWTF). Greenzen claims to have owned and controlled the Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility for allocation, reception, storage, transport, treatment, disposal or any other form of handling Bio-Medical Waste. The working of Greenzen is governed and controlled under the provisions of Bio- Medical Waste Management Rules 2016 (for short the said 2016 Rules). According to Greenzen the said Rule also applies to M/s SNG Environmentary Solution Private Limited (for short SNG), Unique Universal Bio-Waste LLP (for short Unique Universal) and one M/s Medicare Environmental Management Private Limited (for short Medicare). Alleging violations of diverse Rules against the respondents State authorities, Greenzen prayed for withdrawal and setting aside of the recommendation granted in favour of SNG and Unique Universal for setting up a CBMWTF and filed the first writ petition WPA 1374 of 2023 (for short the first writ petition). The first writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order dated November 20, 2023, Annexure R-5 at page 29 to the instant application. The respondent No.11 in the first writ petition being the applicant herein/Unique was not represented, despite notice, in the first writ petition.

6. Alleging violation of several provisions under the said 2016 Rules, Greenzen filed the second instant writ petition WPA 443 of 2025 (for short the second writ petition) praying for cancellation and setting aside of the environmental clearance dated September 1, 2023 and consent to operate dated September 13, 2023 granted in favour of Unique Universal.

SUBMISSIONS:

7. Mr. Ajay Singhal, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that principa