Dismissed¶38

M/s. Trimax Energy and Enviro Care Systems v. The Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Apr 2025WP/9611/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trimax Energy And Enviro Care Systems v. Union of India and Others, W.P. No. 9611 of 2024 (AP High Court at Amaravati, 10.04.2025): writ petition against order under Rule 16 of BioMedical Waste Management Rules 2016 dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue appellate remedy before NGT under Section 16(g) NGT Act; maintainability objection (alternative remedy) recorded on respondents' reliance on 2024 SCC OnLine MP 3246; no finding on appealability; no costs; applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to take recourse to the appellate remedy before the NGT if so open under law; no order as to costs; pending applications closed as a sequel. ¶38

M/s. Trimax Energy and Enviro Care Systems… — Environment and Pollution | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to take recourse to the appellate remedy before the NGT if so open under law; no order as to costs; pending applications closed as a sequel.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition against the order passed under Rule 16 of the BioMedical Waste Management Rules, 2016 is maintainable in view of the preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the NGT under Section 16(g) of the National Green Tribunal Act.

¶33

Court's answer

Recording the preliminary objection regarding the alternative appellate remedy, the Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition; the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to the appellate remedy if so open under law, with no order as to costs and all pending applications closed.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The Court expressly did not observe on whether the impugned order is appealable or not before the NGT under Section 16(g); the dismissal as withdrawn carries no finding on entertainability or appealability.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P. No. 9611 of 2024, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 10.04.2025; Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam JJ., order per Ravi Nath Tilhari J.) - M/s. Trimax Energy And Enviro Care Systems had moved the writ petition against an order passed under Rule 16 of the BioMedical Waste Management Rules, 2016. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 raised a preliminary objection on entertainability, contending that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal before the NGT under Section 16(g) of the National Green Tribunal Act (respondents' counsel in connected W.P.Nos. 11929 and 10643 of 2024 having urged Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010), placing reliance on a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision reported as 2024 SCC OnLine MP 3246. Counsel for the petitioner prayed to withdraw the petition to approach the NGT for the appellate remedy. The Court permitted withdrawal and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to the appellate remedy if so open under law, expressly without observing whether the impugned order is appealable before the NGT under Section 16(g); no order as to costs; pending applications closed.

¶1

APHC010193562024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3524]

¶5

THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 9611/2024

¶10

Between:

¶11

M/s. Trimax Energy And Enviro Care Systems

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The Union of India and Others

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.KALLEMU VIJAYA RAJU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.P VENKAIAH NAIDU

¶20

2.JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶21

3.DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶22

4.GP FOR FORESTS

¶23

5.YELISETTI SOMARAJU STANDING COUNSEL APPCB

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

¶26

On 09.04.2025, the following order was passed:-

¶27

“Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P.No.11929 & 10643 of 2024 raised preliminary objection regarding entertainability of writ petition on the ground that against the appellate order passed under Rule 16 of BioMedical Waste Management Rules, 2016, the petitioners have

¶28

¶29

remedy to approach NGT under Section 14 of National Green Tribunal, Act, 2010.

¶30

In W.P.No.9611 of 2024, Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents also raised the preliminary objection regarding entertainability of the writ petition but on different ground. He submits that against the order passed under Rule 16, remedy is under Section 5(a) of Environment Protection Act R/w.16(g) of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 before the NGT.

¶31

In reply thereto learned counsel for thepetitioner in W.P.No.9611 of 2024 after arguing at some length prays for tomorrow.

¶32

At his request, post on 10.04.2025.”

¶33

Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 reiterates his preliminary objection that the petitioner of this writ petition has alternative remedy of appeal under Section 16(g) of the National Green Tribunal Act. He also places reliance on the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 3246 , and contends that in the said case it was held in para No.16 as under:-

¶34

“……16.Petitioner has not availed the aforesaid statutory remedy before the appellate forum available under different statutory provisions. This Court is of the considered view that several disputed questions of fact are involved in the instant petitions which ought not to be gone into while exercising writ jurisdiction and therefore, this Court declines interference on merits…..”

¶35

Sri Sagarika Koneru, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner,prays to withdraw the writ petition so as to enable the petitioner to approach the NGT to take recourse to the appellate remedy.

¶36

¶37

Recording the aforesaid submissions, but without observing whether the order impugned herein is appealable or not before the NGT under Section 16 (g), the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the writ petition.

¶38