Madras High Court Issues Directions For Movement Of Biomedical Waste, Criticises Villagers Who Tried To Restrict Company From Moving Waste
The Madras High Court has recently issued a set of directions for the movement of bio medical waste. The court was hearing a plea filed by a company which was engaged in the business of collecting and disposing bio medical waste in five districts namely Madurai, Virudhunagar, Theni, Dindigul and Ramanathapuram.The company had approached the court when a group of villagers restricted entry of...
The Madras High Court has recently issued a set of directions for the movement of bio medical waste. The court was hearing a plea filed by a company which was engaged in the business of collecting and disposing bio medical waste in five districts namely Madurai, Virudhunagar, Theni, Dindigul and Ramanathapuram.
The company had approached the court when a group of villagers restricted entry of the company vehicles after a plastic pocket containing amputated limb had fallen on the road in transit. Following this, a peace committee meeting was convened including revenue and police authorities. The company was directed to take a different route and its license was to be renewed only after ascertaining views of villagers.
Justice GR Swaminathan, however criticised the manner in which the villagers had restricted the company. The court noted that the right to carry on business was guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the constitution and the mob could not hold a person at ransom.
It has recently been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the rights under Articles 19 and 21 can find horizontal application also. In other words, they can be invoked even against private individuals. We are a democracy governed by rule of law. A mob cannot hold any person even a disliked business entity to ransom.
The court also noted that the decisions taken by the peace committee did not have any statutory value or force and did not have the character of a binding decision. Though the revenue authorities and police were responsible for maintaining law and order, the same would be binding if the procedure set out in the CrPC was followed. Thus, there was no need for directions forbearing the respondents to give effect to the decisions taken in the peace meeting as the same did not have any legal value.
With respect to the company’s prayer for free access through the public road, the court noted that a balance had to be struck between the company’s right to carry on business and the villagers right to clean environment. The villagers had already complained that that running of the unit was posing serious health hazards. Since these issues could not be brushed aside, the court found it necessary to issue certain directions to the company for carrying Biomedical waste.
Firstly, the court noted that healthcare facilities needed to be registered online and each healthcare facility was to be given a login id to enable online payment. There must be transparency in fee collection to ensure timely service by the waste management provider.
The court also directed that biomedical waste should be collected every 48 hours. While collection, the company should have adequate vehicles and staff and the vehicles must conform to requisite norms. The transportation should be done in closed vehicles, without overstuffing and by maintaining highest transportation standards.
The court added that there should be fixed dates and timings for collection and the drivers must be trained to pay due care to avoid hazard to general public. To ensure proper monitoring and regulation, the court also directed that barcode scanning be introduced to track online via app as prescribed by the pollution control guidelines 2016. It was also suggested that the company give colour coded collection bags to ensure proper segregation.
The court also called for setting up a Grievance cell by the State Pollution Control Board to ensure complaints by the general public are addressed expeditiously.
The court also noted that in the present case, the polluter pays principle is to be applied and the company would be made liable if any similar incident happens in the future.
Case Title: M/s.Re Sustainability Health Care Solutions Ltd v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 82