'Must Narrow Down Gaps For Effective Treatment': AP High Court Upholds New Gap Analysis Method To Treat Bio-Medical Waste

Highlighting the importance exploring new methods for narrowing gaps for effective waste treatment, a division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, explained,

“…it is needful to note that inadequate number of treatment facilities and treatment facilities with inadequate capacity to treat the waste generated may result in unscientific disposal of bio-medical waste to the detriment of public health. The guidelines and the methodology for conducting gap analysis must aim to ensure effective treatment of bio medical waste for protection of environment and public health. Therefore, the concerned Pollution Control Boards must always strive to explore the new methods and modalities to narrow down the gaps, if any, for ensuring compliance of the object of guidelines. Any attempt to curtail them from switching on to new methodology based on studies and adopting the methods followed by the nations across the globe would entail derailment of State's Constitutional obligation for providing pollution free environment and protection of natural environmental resources.”

Background

The petitioner M/s. CBWTF Association of Andhra Pradesh, a registered society operating the Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities (CBWTFs) and providing awareness, knowledge and guidance to proper management of bio medical waste throughout the State.

The State Pollution Control Board was required to conduct gap analysis with reference to coverage area of the Bio-medical waste generation projected over a period of 10 years and examine adequacy of existing treatment facilities of the CBWTF in each coverage area of radius 75 km. If it found that any coverage area requires additional treatment capacity, it was authorised to initiate action for allowing new CBWTF in that locality without interfering with the coverage area of the existing CBWTF and beds covered by existing CBWTF.

The petitioner challenged the switching to a new methodology by Central Pollution Control Board (Respondent 2) for conducting gap analysis based on the study report of the South-East Asian region. This was contrary to the notified methods and was premised on the study report of the South-East Asian region, the transparency and veracity of which was alleged to be unknown. The petitioner also challenged the action of  State Pollution Control Board (Respondent 3) in not considering its representation dated 29.01.2025 submitted to consider the gap analysis report without reference to any new methodology other than the one that was adopted all over the country.

Findings

At the outset, the Court reiterated that in such cases that require specialised knowledge or expertise, especially those made by expert bodies or government agencies, Courts should exercise restraint in interfering with decisions “This principle of judicial restraint stems from the understanding that courts may lack the specific technical or professional expertise necessary to adequately review such decisions. Interference is usually only warranted when there's clear evidence of illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety”, the bench said. 

Additionally, the Court noted that the Central as well as State Pollution Control Boards are manned with experts in the relevant field and who take decisions based on overall study done by experts in the field across the globe compatible with those that existed in India.

Moreover, the Court found no patent illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety in switching on to the new methodology by Central Pollution Control Board and advising the State Control Boards to consider the recommendations made by them on gap analysis report before concluding the requirement of new CBWTFs.

Lastly, the Court reiterated,

“…that unless an authority is obligated under any law or regulation explicitly requiring it to consider and act on the representation, Courts would not direct to do so. Except alleging inaction, the petitioner could not figure out any such law or regulation that obligates respondent no.3 to consider and act on the representation.”

In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed it.

Case Title: M/s. CBWTF Association of Andhra Pradesh v. Union of India

Click Here To Read/Download Order