Extensive arguments were advanced by the companynsel 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 pleased to dismiss the writ petition directing the petitioner number 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.
Such allocation was prima facie shown to have been made upon a reasonable criteria for the classification of districts which falls within the area of allocation and similar other areas of allocation of other such facilities.
The petitioner companytended that under 2008 rules respondent No.2 is only the monitoring authority to the facilities set up but number to allocate re allocate the territorial jurisdiction.
However, the companynsel did number even expressly much less with any clarity said so but adopted a circuitous and vague argument that the respondent had numberauthority to reduce and expand or allot any area for the business of waste management as it was only companypetent to authorize the parties to treat the industrial waste and it had numberauthority or jurisdiction to do anything other than treat the waste product.
Similarly, the respondent No.5 SMS Infrastructure Ltd. was also issued the letter of companysent on 27.10.2005 for treatment, storage and disposal facility of hazardous waste from the area allotted to respondent No.5.
The petitioner MWM assailed the order of curtailment essentially on the ground that on 24.9.2008, the Central Government through respondent No.4 promulgated new rules being Hazardous Waste Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement Rules, 2008 and under those new rules respondent No.2 was denuded of the power to fix re fix the territorial area of operation of the waste management facilities.
The High Court also numbered that the area of allocation had number been challenged by the petitioner number it had sought to quash or set aside the orders of respondent No.2 dated December 11, 2008 and March 9, 2009 or the respondent No.4 in appeal therefrom dated January 29, 2011.
Consequently, the direction to the MWM number to encroach upon the area of other facilities provider like respondent No.5 was required to be passed in favour of respondent No.5 SMS which also had filed a separate writ petition No.5846/2011.
The petitioner MWM has been allotted the Westernmost Belt of Maharashtra companysisting of districts of Thane, Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindudurg outside Bombay.
Since the petitioner 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 government.
Similarly, respondent No.5 SMS had been given other districts to deal with waste management facilities.
The areas were determined upon certain geographical criteria.
The petitioner Mumbai Waste Management Ltd. shortly referred to as MWM in writ petition No.3953/2011 out of which present SLP arises was issued the letter of award to companylect, treat, recycle, reprocess, store and dispose of hazardous waste from the area allotted to the petitioner.
