Delhi High Court
Synergy Waste Management Pvt. ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 28 May, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5557/2015
SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Madan Gera, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Peeyoosh Kalra, Adv. for R- 1 & 3.
Mr D.K. Pradhan, Adv. for Mr Brijesh Mahapatra,
Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 28.05.2015
CM No. 9984/2015 (Exemption)
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
WP(C) 5557/2015 & CM No. 9983/2015 (Stay)
2. By this writ petition the petitioner, effectively, seeks an extension of
the agreement dated 19.05.2005, executed by the petitioner with Director,
Health Service, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (i.e., respondent no.3), till
07.11.2016.
2.1 It is the petitioner's case that because a dispute obtained between the
DDA and respondent no.3, on the issue of deposit of ground rent, DDA did
not issue an NOC for construction and operation of the plant. Resultantly,
there was a delay of nearly 18 months. It is that part of 18 months qua
which extension is sought by way of the present writ petition. A writ of
mandamus is sought in this behalf.
3. Mr Kalra, who appears on advance notice, on behalf of respondent
no.1 and 3, has brought to my notice a common order dated 15.01.2013,
passed by the Division Bench of this court in two writ petitions bearing no.
6976/2008 and 5683/2010. Those writ petitions, according to Mr Kalra,
directed shifting of the bio-medical waste plant, which is, situated at
Sukhdev Vihar in Okhla, Delhi, and is the subject matter of the agreement
dated 19.05.2005.
4. Unfortunately, this order of the Division Bench has not been placed
on record by the petitioner. I may only note that one of the writ petitions,
referred to above, which was adjudicated upon by the Division Bench, was
filed by the petitioner herein.
4.1 When this aspect was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he
handed over a photocopy of the order passed by the Division Bench, which
is, dated 15.01.2013. The operative part of the directions of the Division
Bench, are contained in paragraph 18 of the judgement. The said directions
are extracted hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:
"..... 18. We, therefore, direct respondent No. 2
Government of NCT of Delhi and respondent No. 7 M/s.
Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. to shift the biomedical
waste disposal facility, being operated near Sukhdev Vihar, to
a suitable site. The site suitable for shifting of the said facility
in terms of this order would be identified by the Chief
Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi, within three months
from today in consultation with DDA and DPCC and the
facility in question would be shifted within three months
thereafter, i.e., within 06 months from today. M/s Synergy is
permitted to continue to operate the facility at the present site
till it is shifted to a new site in terms of this order, or 06
months from today, whichever is earlier. If necessary, any
further direction with respect to the shifting of the said facility,
in terms of this order, will be sought from this Court...."
5. A perusal of the above extract would show that the Division Bench, in
no uncertain terms, directed that a suitable site for shifting the bio-medical
plant should be identified within three months, and the plant in question was
required to be shifted within three months thereafter. The petitioner was,
therefore, allowed to operate the plant till it is shifted to a new site in terms
of the order or within six months from the date of the order, whichever was
earlier.
6. I am informed by Mr Ghera, learned counsel for the petitioner, that a
new site was identified at STP, Okhla. It is his contention that inhabitants of
that area filed a writ petition in this court. The said writ petition, I am told,
was numbered as: WP(C) No. 4456/2013, titled: Amritapuri Residents
Welfare Association & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. The orders passed in
that writ petition are not placed on record.
6.1 Mr Ghera, however, submits that, the said writ petition was disposed
of vide order dated 06.08.2014, granting liberty to the petitioners to
approach National Green Tribunal (NGT).
6.2 The proceedings in NGT have, however, also come to an end, I am
told, vide order dated 22.05.2015. Once again, the NGT's order has not
been placed on record by the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for
the DPCC i.e. respondent no.2, has placed a copy of the order before me.
The said order reads as follows:
"..... The learned counsel appearing for Delhi Pollution
Control Committee submits that the committee constituted
under the order of the Tribunal vide order dated 17 th
December, 2014 has approved four sites for the Bio-Medical
Waste Treatment Plant.
He further submits that out of these, two sites are already
operating and the other two sites are being developed.
However, two sites so identified are under the Master Plan
while the other two sites, though have been allotted by the
Government, their land use is still to be corrected. He
further states that all steps would be taken expeditiously to
ensure that these sites become operative at the earliest. Still
two sites are under operation so we are not commenting
thereupon.
In view of the statement made by the learned counsel
these applications have become infructuous and accordingly
disposed of as such without any order as to cost. The
Original Application No. 75 of 2014, Original Application
No. 187(THC) of 2014, (M.A. No. 657 of 2014) and
Original Application No. 171 of 2014 are disposed of
accordingly.
We make it clear that no Bio-Medical Waste treatment
plant would be permitted to operate unless they obtain
Environmental Clearance...."
7. Mr Ghera, therefore, does not dispute that in so far as respondents
were concerned, that an alternative site was offered at STP, Okhla.
8. Having regard to the above, no interim order can be passed in favour
of the petitioner, which would perpetuate the operation of the plant at
Sukhdev Vihar, Okhla.
8.1 As to the possibility of the petitioner finally succeeding in the writ
petition, I have grave doubt. Prima facie, the remedy which the petitioner
would have, if at all, against the respondents, would be in the form of
damages. This aspect will be examined after a return is filed by the
respondents. Accordingly, CM No. 9983/2015 is dismissed.
9. Issue notice in the writ petition.
10. Mr Kalra accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 & 3, while Mr
Pradhan accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2. Counter affidavit be
filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the
next date of hearing.
11. List on 20.11.2015.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MAY 28, 2015
kk
