M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. This appeal by the appellant (respondent No. 4 in the writ petition) under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2006 passed in W.P.(C) 1018 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ application filed by respondent No. 1 herein prohibiting and restraining the respondent-Heavy Engineering Corporation (in short HEC) from selling non-ferrous metal wastes to the present appellant.

2. By a tender notice dated 26th July, 2005 the respondent-HEC invited tender for disposal/auction sale of its non-ferrous metal wastes, lying at its Foundry Forge Plant, Heavy Tools Plant and Heavy Machine Building Plant. The non-ferrous metals, as mentioned in the tender notice, consisted of materials, such as, brass-chips, mixed N.F.T/B, mixed N.F. ingot, mixed N.F. skull, dross and spillage and floor sweepings.

3. The case of the writ petitioner was that it is duly registered under the provisions of Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989 (in short H.W. Rules, 1989) and was eligible to purchase the non-ferrous metal wastes. Further case of the writ petitioner was that it submitted tender but due to some confusion it could not fulfill the conditions of the tender notice. It was alleged that respondent No. 4 is not registered as authorized Re-refiner or Recycler but yet the tender was allotted to respondent No. 4 in utter violation of the provision of H.W. Rules, 1989.

4. The appellant, who is respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, filed a detailed counter affidavit stating therein that the appellant firm is duly registered under Rule 5 of H.W. Rules, 1989. It wag further stated that the products and the scrapes which were described in the tender paper as by-product of copper waste non-ferrous material do not come under non-ferrous metal, is hazardous wastes and for that the appellant was authorized under Rule 5 of H.W. Rules and a certificate to that effect was also issued by the Uttar Pradesh Council of Control Board for collection, reception, treatment, storage and destruction of hazardous wastes.

5. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge, considering the fact that the present appellant (respondent No. 4) is not registered as Re-refiner or recycler under Rules, 1989, prohibited respondent-HEC from selling the non- ferrous metal wastes to the appellant. Consequently the sale order issued in favour of the respondent was cancelled by the learned Single Judge without giving any relief to the writ petitioner. Hence this appeal.

6. I have heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-HEC Ltd, Inspite of service of notice, the respondent writ petitioner has not appeared in this appeal.

7. From perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, it appears that considering the provisions of Rules, 19 and 20 of the H.W. Rule, 1989, the learned Single Judge held that the sale order issued by the respondent-HEC is in violation of the aforesaid rules.

8. At the very outset, I would like to mention here that pursuant to the tender notice issued by the respondent-HEC, both the appellant and the respondent writ petitioner along with others, submitted their tenders. The writ petitioner participation in the tender, but his bid was rejected due to non- fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the tender notice. The tender of the appellant was finalized and work order was issued on 6.2.2006. It has not been disputed that pursuant to the work order, the appellant lifted substantial quantity of wastes after depositing the security amount of Rs. 3.4 lacs and further deposited a sum of Rs. 12.01 lacs. It is only thereafter the writ petitioner, after participating in the tender and after having been declared unsuccessful, challenged the tender notice on the ground that the respondent-HEC cannot sell the non ferrous metal and wastes to any party, particularly the a