MUMBAI WASTE MANAGEMENT LTD. versus SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 6 S.C.R. 1153 · Decided: 02-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 6 S.C.R. 1153 
MUMBAI WASTE MANAGEMENT LTD. 
v. 
SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT GOVERNMENT OF 
INDIA & ORS. 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18394-9512012) 
MAY 2, 2013 
[GYAN · SUDHA MISRA AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
HAZARDOUS WASTE (MANAGEMENT AND 
HANDLING) RULES, 1989: 
A 
B 
c 
r. 5 (2) -- Allotment of area to petitioner to collect, treat, 
recycle, reprocess, store and dispose of hazardous waste -
Subsequently, allotment to another concern also - Writ 
petition by petitioner challenging the order of curtailment -
0 
Held: The order is not patently unjust or illegal on the existing 
facts of the case - In view of the order of allocation specifically 
determining the territory which has been allotted to petitioner 
and fifth respondent, order of High Court as also of appellate 
authority do not need to be interfered with as High Court is 
E 
correct and justified in holding that petitioner would not 
encroach upon the territory which falls beyond the territory 
which had been allotted to it -- As Jong as competence and 
authority of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and 
Department of Environment, Government of Maharashtra is 
not struck down as illegal and invalid by any court of F 
competent jurisdiction, it is not open for petitioner to assail 
their authority for the first time before Supreme Court at the 
stage of special leave to appeal, specially when the question 
had not been raised by petitioner before High Court --
Hazardous 
Waste 
(Management, 
Handling 
and G 
Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Art. 136. 
1153 
H 
1154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Petition For Sepcial 
Leave (Civil) No. 18394-18395 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.03.2012 of the High 
Court of Bombay in CA No. 1310 of 2011, CWP No. 3953 of 
B 2011. 
Shailesh K. Kapoor, Ajay Kumar, Rajan Singh, 
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Petitioner. 
P.S. Patwalia, Jayant Kumar, Dr. Sadhna Mahashabde, 
c Dharitry Phookan, Vivek Vishnoi, Mukesh Verma, Pawan 
Kumar Shukla, Yash Pal Dhingra for the Respondents. 
D 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Extensive arguments were advanced by the counsel for 
the petitioner at the admission stage itself who has assailed 
the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay 
in Writ Petition No.3953/2011 whereby the High Court was 
E pleased to dismiss the writ petition directing the petitioner not 
to encroach upon the area of operation allotted by respondent 
No.2, Secretary of Environment, Government of India to any 
other facility except its own. 
2. The petitioner-Mumbai Waste Management Ltd. (shortly 
F referred to as 'MWM') in writ petition No.3953/2011 out of which 
present SLP arises was issued the letter of award to collect, 
treat, recycle, reprocess, store and dispose of hazardous 
waste from the area allotted to the petitioner. Similarly, the 
respondent No.5 SMS Infrastructure Ltd. was also issued the 
G letter of consent on 27 .10.2005 for treatment, storage and 
disposal facility of hazardous waste from the area allotted to 
respondent No.5. The areas were determined upon certain 
geographical criteria. The petitioner - MWM has been allotted 
the Westernmost Belt of Maharashtra consisting of districts of 
H Thane, Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindudurg outside Bombay. 
MUMBAI WASTE MANAGEMENT LTD. v. 
1155 
SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT GOVT. OF INDIA 
to deal with waste management facilities. Since the petitioner 
A 
- MWM was issued the letter of award for the years prior to 
respondent No.5, the petitioner MWM felt aggrieved as it 
curtailed some part of their area of operation as part of those 
areas were given to respondent No.5 - SMS since it offered 
more facilities for treatment of hazardous waste by the 
B 
government. 
3. The petitioner - MWM, therefore, challenged the fixing 
of the territorial jurisdiction and the assignment of the areas of 
operation by the government-respondent No.2 and claim that 
it is entitled to collect the hazardous waste of establishment 
C 
outside the area allotted to it. 
4. The principal ground of challenge of the Petitioner-MWM 
is that under the rules of 2005 in force, the consent to operate 
was not materially changed under the new rules of 2008 under 
D 
which the government merely sought to re-fix the territorial area 
of operation through the orders of respondent No.2. The 
petitioner-MWM assailed the order of curtailment essentia
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.