Telangana Hospitals And Nursing Homes ... vs The Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 304 Tel

Telangana High Court

Telangana Hospitals And Nursing Homes ... vs The Union Of India on 2 April, 2026

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

  IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                        AT: HYDERABAD
        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
                       AND
    HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO

              WRIT PETITION NO. 28859 OF 2025

                         Date:     -04-2026

Between in WP No. 28859 of 2025

Telangana Hospitals and Nursing Homes
Association and others                                   ...Petitioners

                                 And

Union of India rep. by its Under Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change and others                                     ......Respondents

This Court made the following

                              ORDER

Heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel

representing Mrs. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the

petitioners, Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of

India appearing for respondent No.1. Mr. Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood,

learned counsel for respondent No.4, learned Government Pleader for

Environment, Science and Technology for respondent No.2,

Mr. Kondapally Ravikrishnakanth, learned counsel for respondent

No.3 and Mr. Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.5 to 15.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India challenging the validity of Guideline No. 14

issued by Respondent No. 3 - Central Pollution Control Board

(CPCB) under the "Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste

Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2025", and the consequential

Circular No. TGPCB/BMW/HO/2025-655 dated 04.06.2025 issued by

Respondent No. 4 - Telangana Pollution Control Board (TGPCB).

3. The petitioners comprise of registered association of

hospitals and its member healthcare facilities functioning in the State

of Telangana, all of whom fall within the definition of "occupiers"

under the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, framed under

the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act, 1986').

4. The CPCB, in exercise of its statutory powers, issued revised

guidelines dated 12.04.2025 governing Common Bio-Medical Waste

Treatment Facilities (CBMWTFs). Guideline No. 14 thereof provides

for fixation of user charges payable by healthcare facilities,

prescribing a differential methodology, charging non-bedded facilities

on the basis of waste generation, while charging bedded hospitals on a

"per bed per day" basis.

5. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 4 issued the impugned

Circular dated 04.06.2025 fixing user charges in the State of

Telangana by adopting the said differential mechanism, thereby

requiring bedded healthcare facilities to pay charges on a per bed per

day basis, irrespective of actual waste generated, while non-bedded

facilities are charged differently.

6. The petitioners contend that such classification between

bedded and non-bedded healthcare facilities, in the matter of levy of

user charges, is arbitrary, lacks statutory backing, and imposes an

unreasonable financial burden, particularly where occupancy rates are

low.

7. Aggrieved by the said guideline and circular, the petitioners

have approached this Court seeking a declaration that the same are

discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,

along with a consequential direction for uniform charging based on

actual waste generation.

8. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

i. The impugned Guideline No. 14 issued by Respondent No. 3

and the consequential Circular dated 04.06.2025 issued by

Respondent No. 4 are wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

ii. The petitioners, being "occupiers" under the Bio-Medical

Waste Management Rules, 2016, are statutorily obligated to

ensure safe handling and disposal of bio-medical waste.

However, neither the provisions of the Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986 nor the BMWM Rules, 2016 confer any

power upon the respondents to prescribe or enforce a

differential pricing mechanism for collection and disposal of

such waste.

iii. The primary grievance of the petitioners is directed against the

classification introduced under Guideline No. 14, whereby

bedded healthcare facilities are charged on a "per bed per day"

basis, while non-bedded healthcare facilities are charged on the

basis of actual waste generation. According to the petitioners,

such classification is artificial, lacks intelligible differentia, and

bears no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved,

namely safe and efficient disposal of bio-medical waste.

iv. The quantity of bio-medical waste generated by a healthcare

facility is not dependent on the number of beds available, but

on actual usage, patient inflow, and nature of medical

procedures conducted. Consequently, levying charges on a per

bed per day basis, irrespective of actual waste generation,

results in an arbitrary and excessive financial burden on bedded

healthcare facilities, particularly in cases of low occupancy.

v. There is no functional or operational distinction, insofar as

collection, transportation, and disposal of bio-medical waste are

concerned, between bedded and non-bedded healthcare

facilities. The services rendered by CBMWTF operators remain

identical, and therefore, adopting different yardsticks for

determining charges is discriminatory and unjustified.

vi. The impugned action amounts to hostile discrimination against

bedded healthcare facilities, as they are compelled to pay higher

charges without any corresponding increase in services or

benefits. Such unequal treatment, according to the petitioners,

squarely falls foul of the equality clause under Article 14 of the

Constitution.

vii. The petitioners had submitted representations to Respondent

No. 4 seeking uniform fixation of charges based on actual

weight of bio-medical waste for all categories of healthcare

facilities. However, the said representations were arbitrarily

rejected without assigning any cogent reasons, thereby vitiating

the decision-making process.

viii. The impugned guideline and circular, being devoid of statutory

backing and issued without proper application of mind, are

liable to be struck down as unconstitutional, and a direction

ought to be issued to the respondents to adopt a uniform and

rational method of charging based on actual waste generated.

9. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No. 3- (CPCB),

i. The writ petition is misconceived, both on facts and in law, and

is liable to be dismissed in limine.

ii. The CPCB is a statutory authority constituted under the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and is vested with the

power to issue guidelines for effective implementation of the

Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 across the

country. The guidelines issued by the CPCB are binding in

nature and are intended to ensure uniformity, environmental

safety, and scientific handling of bio-medical waste.

iii. the Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and

Disposal Facilities, 2025 have been issued after due

consideration of technical, environmental, and operational

factors, and are in furtherance of the statutory scheme under the

1986 Act and the BMWM Rules, 2016. Guideline No. 14,

which deals with the fixation of user charges, is a policy

decision taken to balance the interests of healthcare facilities

and CBMWTF operators, while ensuring sustainability of the

waste management system.

iv. The classification between bedded and non-bedded healthcare

facilities is based on intelligible differentia. Bedded hospitals,

by their very nature, have higher capacity, greater patient

turnover, and generate more complex and hazardous bio-

medical waste, including waste from ICUs, operation theatres,

and inpatient care. Therefore, the adoption of a "per bed per

day" model is a reasonable and practical method to estimate

waste generation and to ensure effective planning and

management.

v. The said classification has a direct nexus with the object sought

to be achieved, namely ensuring safe, continuous, and efficient

bio-medical waste management, and therefore satisfies the test

under Article 14 of the Constitution.

vi. Fixation of user charges cannot be confined strictly to actual

weight of waste generated, as such a model would be

impractical, prone to manipulation, and administratively

burdensome. The per bed per day model provides certainty,

predictability, and administrative convenience, which are

essential for maintaining the operational viability of

CBMWTFs.

vii. The impugned guideline does not operate in isolation but forms

part of a comprehensive regulatory framework, wherein factors

such as size of the facility, number of beds, distance from the

CBMWTF, and operational costs are taken into consideration

while determining charge.

viii. The petitioners cannot challenge a policy decision merely on

the ground that an alternative method may be more suitable. In

the absence of manifest arbitrariness or lack of competence, the

scope of judicial review in such matters is limited, and the

Court ought not to interfere with expert-driven regulatory

decisions.

10. With the aforesaid contentions, it sought to dismiss the writ

petition.

11. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No. 4- TGPCB

i. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

ii. The impugned Circular dated 04.06.2025 has been issued

strictly in compliance with the Guidelines framed by

Respondent No. 3 - CPCB, and in discharge of the statutory

obligations cast upon the State Pollution Control Board under

the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Bio-Medical

Waste Management Rules, 2016.

iii. The CPCB Guidelines, 2025 are mandatory in nature, and the

TGPCB, being the prescribed authority for the State, is bound

to implement the same to ensure uniformity and environmental

safety. The impugned Circular is thus not an independent or

arbitrary exercise of power, but a consequential action taken in

furtherance of binding national guidelines.

iv. Guideline No. 14 provides a rational and well-structured

methodology for fixation of user charges by prescribing

different models for bedded and non-bedded healthcare

facilities. The distinction is based on several relevant

considerations, including capacity, nature of operations, and

potential waste generation.

v. The "per bed per day" model for bedded hospitals is adopted as

a reliable proxy for estimating maximum waste generation and

for facilitating effective logistical planning by CBMWTF

operators. The operators are required to ensure compliance with

statutory timelines, including treatment and disposal within

prescribed time limits, and must therefore plan infrastructure,

transportation, and treatment capacity based on the potential

load generated by healthcare facilities.

vi. Reliance solely on actual daily weight of waste would lead to

uncertainty, operational inefficiencies, and environmental risks,

particularly in cases of sudden surges in waste generation. The

per bed model, therefore, ensures predictability, stability, and

preparedness in waste management systems.

vii. Bedded hospitals generate more diverse and hazardous

categories of bio-medical waste, including waste from surgical

procedures, intensive care units, and inpatient services, which

require specialized handling and treatment. The charging

mechanism takes into account not merely the quantity but also

the nature and complexity of waste.

viii. CBMWTFs involve substantial capital investment and recurring

operational costs, including manpower, transportation, fuel,

electricity, and compliance with environmental standards. A

stable and predictable revenue model, such as the per bed per

day system, is essential to ensure financial viability and

sustainability of such facilities, failing which the entire bio-

medical waste management framework would be jeopardized.

ix. The methodology adopted is administratively feasible and

minimizes disputes, whereas a purely weight-based system

would be cumbersome, prone to discrepancies, and difficult to

implement on a daily basis across numerous healthcare

facilities.

x. It placed reliance on the detailed consultative process

undertaken prior to fixation of user charges, including

deliberations with stakeholders, advisory committees, and

consideration of practices prevailing in other States, thereby

demonstrating that the decision is neither arbitrary nor

unilateral.

xi. The classification between bedded and non-bedded healthcare

facilities is based on intelligible differentia having a rational

nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and therefore does

not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

12. With the said contentions, it sought to dismiss the writ

petition.

13. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos. 5-15

i. CBMWTF operators are engaged in the collection,

transportation, treatment, and disposal of bio-medical waste in

strict compliance with the Bio-Medical Waste Management

Rules, 2016, and the guidelines issued by the CPCB. The

functioning of such facilities involves significant capital

investment in infrastructure, machinery, and technology, along

with substantial recurring operational costs including

manpower, fuel, electricity, maintenance, and statutory

compliance requirements.

ii. The fixation of user charges on a "per bed per day" basis for

bedded healthcare facilities ensures a stable and predictable

revenue stream, which is essential for the financial viability and

sustainability of CBMWTFs. It is argued that if the charges are

made entirely dependent on fluctuating waste generation, the

operators would face serious financial uncertainty, thereby

adversely affecting their ability to maintain continuous and

compliant operations.

iii. The bedded hospitals, by virtue of their size, capacity, and

nature of services, generate not only larger quantities but also

more complex and hazardous categories of bio-medical waste,

requiring specialized handling, segregation, and treatment.

Therefore, the differential charging mechanism is justified and

based on practical considerations.

iv. The per bed per day model enables effective logistical planning,

including route optimization, allocation of transport vehicles,

and treatment capacity, as the operators are required to be

prepared for maximum potential waste generation at any given

time.

v. The impugned guideline strikes a balance between the interests

of healthcare facilities and the operators, ensuring that the

charges are neither monopolistic nor detrimental to the

sustainability of the system, as expressly contemplated under

Guideline No. 14.

vi. The petitioners cannot seek to impose a uniform weight-based

charging system, which would be impractical, administratively

burdensome, and detrimental to efficient waste management,

and that the present challenge is essentially against a policy

decision taken in public interest.

14. With the said contentions, they sought to dismiss the writ

petition.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and contentions, the

principal question that falls for consideration of this Court is:

Whether Guideline No. 14 of the CPCB Guidelines, 2025, and the consequential Circular dated 04.06.2025 issued by the Telangana Pollution Control Board, insofar as they prescribe user charges on a per bed per day basis for bedded healthcare facilities while adopting a different charging methodology for non-bedded healthcare facilities, suffer from hostile discrimination and thereby infringe Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

16. At the outset, it must be observed that the present matter

arises in the context of environmental regulation under the Bio-

Medical Waste Management regime, where the charges in question are

regulatory and service-linked in nature. The impugned guideline itself

proceeds on the footing that the cost to be charged by the Common

Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility operator is integrally connected

with financial viability, sustainable operation, and continued

compliance with the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016,

and it specifically contemplates separate methodologies for non-

bedded and bedded healthcare units. The petitioners do not dispute the

existence of the regulatory framework; their grievance is confined to

the differential basis of computation.

17. The settled position under Article 14 is that a classification

is constitutionally valid if it is founded on an intelligible differentia

and if such differentia has a rational nexus to the object sought to be

achieved. Equally, a court while examining a challenge to a policy

measure does not sit as an appellate authority over the wisdom of the

policy, but only examines whether the classification is manifestly

arbitrary, artificial, evasive or unrelated to the statutory object.

18. In this context, it is apt to note that the Apex Court in

Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India 1 which emphasizes that a valid

classification must rest on a definite yardstick; the distinction must be

(2024) 15 SCC 535

real, pertinent and discernible; the dividing line must not be illusory,

vague or indeterminate; and the basis cannot be arbitrary or evasive.

19. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted

below:-

181. A valid classification under Article 14 presupposes a definite yardstick to distinguish the classes created, and the difference must be real, pertinent and discernible. [Murthy Match Works v. CCE, (1974) 4 SCC 428] The State is free to recognise degrees of harm as long as the basis of classification is not arbitrary, artificial, or evasive. The line between the two classes must be clear and not illusory, vague, and indeterminate

20. Even going by that test, the present classification cannot be

faulted. The yardstick adopted here is the number of beds, which is

neither subjective nor fluid, but an objective and verifiable index

reflected in the statutory consents and authorizations of the healthcare

facility. Further, the distinction between a bedded and a non-bedded

facility is not merely formal; it is rooted in the very nature of

healthcare delivery, the scale of operations, the intensity of patient

handling, and the potentiality and complexity of waste generation.

21. The plea of the petitioners proceeds on the assumption that

actual waste weight alone is the only constitutionally permissible

basis for user charges. This assumption, in the opinion of this Court, is

misplaced. A bedded hospital is not comparable to a non-bedded clinic

merely because both generate bio-medical waste. Bedded facilities

render inpatient care, often round the clock, and ordinarily include

wards, procedure rooms, operation theatres, ICUs, maternity units and

recovery facilities. Their waste stream is correspondingly more

diverse and potentially more hazardous. Respondent No. 4 has

specifically pleaded that such hospitals generate anatomical waste,

soiled waste, sharps, pathological waste, pharmaceutical waste and

chemical waste in a manner qualitatively distinct from the limited

waste profile of outpatient clinics and diagnostic establishments. It is

this functional and operational distinction that furnishes the

intelligible differentia.

22. The nexus between the classification and the object of the

guideline is also direct and evident. The object is not merely recovery

of a charge, but ensuring continuous, timely and environmentally

sound collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of biomedical

waste through financially viable and logistically prepared CBMWTFs.

For such operators, the number of beds constitutes a stable proxy for

the maximum potential load that may arise from a facility. As pleaded

by Respondent No. 4, the operator must plan transport routes, fleet

size, manpower, handling capacity and treatment preparedness in

advance so as to comply with the statutory timelines under the Rules.

A model exclusively dependent on fluctuating day-to-day waste

weight may not furnish the certainty necessary for such planning and

may itself become a source of disputes, under-preparedness and

environmental risk. Thus, the differentia is not only real, but bears a

clear nexus with the regulatory objective.

23. The principle laid down by the Apex Court in Ayurveda

Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu2 does not advance the petitioners'

case. On the contrary, paragraphs 5 and 6 therein reinforce the true

constitutional standard. In paragraph 5, the Supreme Court observed

that where commodities belong to the same category, the question is

(1989) 2 SCC 285

whether there exists a relevant justification for treating them

differently. In paragraph 6, the Court held that while the Legislature or

the State may prescribe different rates for different commodities, if the

items belong to the same class or category there must exist a rational

basis for discrimination, and where the reason put forward is

extraneous to the object of the law, the distinction cannot be sustained.

24. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted

below:-

6. ...It is open to the legislature, or the State Government if it is authorised in that behalf by the legislature, to select different rates of tax for different commodities. But where the commodities belong to the same class or category, there must be a rational basis for discriminating between one commodity and another for the purpose of imposing tax. It is commonly known that considerations of economic policy constitute a basis for levying different rates of sales tax. For instance, the object may be to encourage a certain trade or industry in the context of the State policy for economic growth, and a lower rate would be considered justified in the case of such a commodity. There may be several such considerations bearing directly on the choice of the rate of sales tax, and so long as there is good reason for making the distinction from other commodities no complaint can be made. What the actual rate should be is not a matter for the courts to determine generally, but where a distinction is made between commodities falling in the same category a question arises at once before a court whether there is justification for the discrimination...

25. The present case stands on a different footing. First, bedded

and non-bedded healthcare facilities cannot be treated as

homogeneous units for all regulatory purposes. Their service profile,

waste generation pattern, treatment demands and logistical

implications materially differ. Secondly, the basis of the present

distinction is not extraneous to the statutory object. The per bed

methodology is adopted precisely to subserve the object of

sustainable, safe and compliant biomedical waste management.

Thirdly, the charge here is regulatory and service-linked, not a general

fiscal impost divorced from actual service architecture. Therefore, the

ratio of Ayurveda Pharmacy (supra) is that a classification fails

when the basis of distinction is alien to the object of the law; it does

not prohibit differentiation where the basis is itself drawn from

operational realities connected with the statutory purpose.

26. The scope of judicial review in matters of policy is well

settled. In Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India 3, the

(2002) 2 SCC 333

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that courts do not sit in appeal over the

wisdom or desirability of policy decisions, and such decisions cannot

be interfered with merely because an alternative approach may appear

more reasonable. Judicial interference is warranted only where the

policy is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide,

or violative of statutory or constitutional provisions. Policy choices,

particularly those involving technical, financial, and administrative

considerations, fall within the domain of the executive, and so long as

the decision-making process is bona fide and within the bounds of

law, the Court must exercise restraint.

46. It is evident from the above that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical.

27. Tested on that standard, the impugned classification cannot

be characterized as arbitrary. The material on record shows that the

charging structure did not emerge overnight or in isolation.

Respondent No. 4 has placed on record that after the 2016 guidelines,

the issue of user charges was deliberated in the State Advisory

Committee; a committee of experts and senior officials was

constituted; consultations were held with THANA, IMA,

representatives of government hospitals and other stakeholders;

comparative user charge structures in several States were examined;

and the revised regime was thereafter evolved. The 2025 CPCB

guideline also expressly contemplates that the cost model should be

worked out keeping in view the size of the facility, the number of

beds, and other operational factors. Such an exercise, involving

technical and environmental considerations, is plainly within the

domain of specialized regulatory authorities.

28. This Court is also unable to accept the submission that

actual occupancy alone should determine the chargeability of bedded

hospitals. Occupancy is inherently variable and transient. The

regulatory obligation of the CBMWTF operator, however, is not

contingent upon average occupancy but upon maintaining readiness to

service authorized facilities within the statutory timeline. The relevant

consideration for systemic planning is therefore potentiality of

generation correlated with licensed capacity, and not merely actual

generation on a given day. The law does not require the State to

choose the most mathematically exact standard; it requires that the

standard adopted must be reasonable, objective and relevant. The bed-

strength based metric answers that description.

29. At the same time, the Court must observe that the validity of

the classification does not place the regulatory regime beyond scrutiny

altogether. The guideline itself contemplates periodic revision in

consultation with the concerned authorities, local medical associations

and representatives of the CBMWTF association. Therefore, while the

constitutional challenge to the basis of classification does not merit

acceptance, the authorities remain under a continuing obligation to

ensure that rates are periodically reviewed and that the burden

imposed remains proportionate to the object sought to be achieved.

CONCLUSION

30. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the classification between bedded and non-

bedded healthcare facilities under Guideline No. 14 is founded on an

intelligible differentia, namely the scale, nature and potentiality of

bio-medical waste generation, and bears a rational nexus with the

object sought to be achieved, i.e., ensuring an efficient, sustainable

and environmentally compliant bio-medical waste management

system.

31. The challenge mounted by the petitioners, in substance,

seeks substitution of the policy adopted by the expert regulatory

authorities with an alternative mechanism preferred by them. Such an

exercise is impermissible in the limited scope of judicial review,

particularly in matters involving technical and policy considerations,

unless the impugned action is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or

unconstitutional, which, in the present case, has not been established.

32. This Court also takes note of the fact that the impugned

mechanism has been evolved after due deliberation, consultation with

stakeholders, and consideration of prevailing practices across various

States, thereby reinforcing its reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.

33. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition

and the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. However, the

respondent Nos.3 - CPCB and respondent No.4 - TPCB authorities

shall continue to periodically review the charging mechanism as per

CPCB Guidelines to ensure that it remains fair, reasonable and

proportionate to the object sought to be achieved. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

in the writ petition shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

___________________________________ JUSTICE B.R MADHUSUDHAN RAO Date: 02. 04.2026.

VVR