Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/28317/2023 of M/S DEVIS SURGICO THROUGH PARTNER SHRI SANJAY SANODE Vs UNION OF INDIA on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDION THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 28317 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
M/S. DEVIS SURGICO THROUGH PARTNER SHRISANJAY SANODE, HAVING OFFICE AT 3, GIRRAJMARKET, LOHIYA BAZAAR RD. NAYA BAZAAR,LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) 474009
(SHRI YADVENDRA MICHAEL YADAV - ADVOCATE PETITIONER )
.....PETITIONERFOR THE
AND
1.UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTFOREST AND CLIMATE EXCHANGE, THROUGHITS SECRETARY, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN,JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003FOREST AND CLIMATE EXCHANGE, THROUGHITS SECRETARY, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN,JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003
2.MADHYA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROLB O A R D THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARYPARYAVARAN PARISAR, E-5, ARERA COLONY,BHOPAL - 462016B O A R D THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARYPARYAVARAN PARISAR, E-5, ARERA COLONY,BHOPAL - 462016
3.M/S JRR WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIVATEL I M I T E D , THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZEDREPRESENTATIVE, HAVING OFFICE AT:: PLOTNO. 22-23GAA, MALANPUR - GHIRONGHI, GOHAD,DISTRICT BHIND- 477117 (MADHYA PRADESH)L I M I T E D , THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZEDREPRESENTATIVE, HAVING OFFICE AT:: PLOTNO. 22-23GAA, MALANPUR - GHIRONGHI, GOHAD,DISTRICT BHIND- 477117 (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.M/S VNS SOLUTIONS, THROUGH ITSAUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HAVING OFFICEAT - PLOT NO. 16 GAA, MALANPUR- GHIRONGHIINDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIND 477117AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HAVING OFFICEAT - PLOT NO. 16 GAA, MALANPUR- GHIRONGHIINDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIND 477117
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRAVEEN NEWASKAR - DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL FORRESPONDENT/UNION OF INDIA)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Rohit Aryapassed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Petitioner, operator of Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility, ishaving consent to operate in three districts viz. Gwalior, Sheopur and Datia.
2. Undisputedly, the Central Government has framed “Bio-MedicalWaste Management Rules, 2016” superseding the earlier Rules i.e. “Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998”, published in thegazette vide Notification No.S.O. 630(E) dated 20.07.1998 through Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests. These rules are framed for regulating the frame workfor management of bio-medical waste generated in the country. These rules areundisputedly applicable to the dispute raised in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to the detriment of thepetitioner, the jurisdiction of Sheopur and Datia has been given to respondentNo.4 without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He apprehendsthat the same recourse may be taken in case of Gwalior as well and therefore,prays that concerned respondents may be directed to afford an opportunity tothe petitioner before the said vulnerable act.
4. Rule 10 of 2016 Rules contemplates procedure for authorization andRule 16 of 2016 Rules provides for appeal.
5. In our opinion, Rule 16 provides for that an appeal shall cover anyimpugned action detrimental to the rights, interests and claim of the petitionertaken by the prescribed authority. Therefore, if so advised, petitioner mayprefer an appeal against the grievance relating to Sheopur and Datia. As regards,grievance related to Gwalior district, it is a mere apprehension as so far noorder has been passed to the prejudice of the petitioner.
Before parting with the case, it may be observed that petitioner is alwaysfree to approach the prescribed authority.
6. With the aforesaid, present writ petition stands disposed of.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on themerits of the case.
pd
(ROHIT ARYA)(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)JUDGEJUDGE