Petitioner Final AA

Team Code – TM15
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT, ARESE
IN THE MATTER OF:
MED-FOIL HOSPITAL AND ORS………………………………………………….PETITIONER
VERSUS
MR. SATYAJEET GHOSH……………………………………….……………….RESPONDENT
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARESE
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................... v
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................... vi
STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................................vii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................... viii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................. ix
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................... 1
I. That the NGT did not have the jurisdiction of the instant matter ................................... 1
I.I That the NGT deals with the matters concerning environment however the instant
matter is pertaining to public health. .................................................................................. 1
I.II That the original petitioners did not approach the concerned authorities who did have
the jurisdiction of the alleged violations............................................................................. 2
II. That the original application was non-maintainable ....................................................... 3
II.I That the original application before the NGT was time barred as no such explanation
of huge delay was provided. ............................................................................................... 3
II.II That the original applicant has no locus standi in the present matter. ........................ 4
III. That the CPCB is not liable for the alleged non-compliance of Bio Medical Waste
Rules 2016 .............................................................................................................................. 4
III.I That the issues pertaining to Public Health are the matter of state under constitution5
III.II That the full-compliance of the Bio Medical Rules is not the mandatory duty of the
CPCB .................................................................................................................................. 5
III.III That the CPCB has fulfilled its responsibilities prescribed in the Bio Medical
Waste rules 2016. ............................................................................................................... 6
III.IV That the CPCB has taken actions against all the violations. .................................... 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE|I

III.V That the CPCB is not liable for the trans-boundary transportation of Bio Medical
waste. .................................................................................................................................. 8
I.VI That the penalty cannot be imposed against the CPCB by the NGT. ......................... 9
III.VII That the CPCB has the protection of action taken in good faith under section 32
of the NGT Act, 2010. ...................................................................................................... 10
III.VIII That the CPCB shares the responsibility with other authorities and therefore,
cannot be held accountable solely. ................................................................................... 10
IV. That the SPCB is not liable for the alleged non-compliance of the Bio Medical
Waste Rules 2016. ................................................................................................................ 11
IV.I That the As the reasons mentioned in the above contentions in iii.ii is applicable in
the contention of SPCB as well. ....................................................................................... 11
IV.II That the SPCB has performed the duties mentioned under the Bio Medical Rules 11
IV.III That the SPCB performs quasi-judicial duty while performing its duties and
therefore, have protection under section 32(2). ................................................................ 12
That the State Government is not liable for the alleged non-compliance of the rules. ............ 13
V.I That the state government has fulfilled its responsibilities mentioned in schedule III
of the BMW rules ............................................................................................................. 13
V.II That the state government has been working with due diligence for preventing
violations of the BMW rules ............................................................................................ 14
V.III That the state government has fulfilled its duties stipulated in MSW rules 2016. .. 15
V.IV That the State government has fulfilled its duty under public trust doctrine .......... 16
V. That the hospital is not liable for the alleged non-compliance of the rules .................. 16
VI.I That the hospital has performed the duties mentioned in the BMW rules. ............... 17
VI.II That the SPCB’s decision operates as res judicata ................................................. 17
VI.III That the polluters pay doctrine doesn’t apply to this case ..................................... 18
VI.IV That the precautionary principle is not applicable to this case .............................. 19
VI.V That the order of NGT violates the doctrine of sustainability ................................. 19
VI.VI That the hospital is not responsible for the mishandling of the bio medical waste 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE|II

VI.VII That the basis on which the Original Appellant approached the Tribunal was not
reliable and cannot be admissible before the Court .......................................................... 20
VI.VIII that the association of hospitals was not an original respondent in the case before
the NGT and hence there should not be any order against the stakeholder without
exercising its right to be heard .......................................................................................... 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE|III

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS FULL-FORM
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board
SPCB State Pollution Control Board
NGT National Green Tribunal
Ors. Others
Vs. Versus
BMW Bio Medical Waste
SWM Solid Waste Management
CBMWTF Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment
Facility
Hon’ble Honourable
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS PAGE|IV

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES PAGE|V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Court have the jurisdiction of this matter under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India.
Article 136 of Indian Constitution:
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
India
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION PAGE|VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Arese is a South Asian country having quasi federal system of government. Questions
were raised about economic and environmental effects of bio-medical waste in
developing countries. It was mentioned that the bio-medical waste is highly infectious
in nature and can pose a serious threat to human health.
2. Med-foil hospital is a private hospital established under the Indian trusts Act. The
hospital has an Infection Control Committee consisting of 2 doctors and 3 nurses. The
applicant Mr. Satyajeet Ghosh was hospitalized in med-foil hospital for the treatment
of kidney. Subsequently, he was affected by tuberculosis and his stay was prolonged
by one and half months.
3. Satyajeet Ghosh observed that the bio-medical waste generated is not segregated
properly and is not disposed regularly. BMW is scattered in the open and has spread
to the river Jalshakti, flowing alongside the hospital. He made
complaints/representations to the concerned authorities. The authorities issued a
cumulative report of the functioning of BMW disposal system of the Med-foil
hospital and other state hospitals. He then filed the case in NGT. He joined several
parties including the CPCB, SPCB, Collector and the Hospital.
4. The applicant advanced his arguments on the basis of RTI information, a report
published in a local daily newspaper, police inspections and his personal observations.
He also mentioned that the transboundary movement of bio-medical waste was also a
prevalent issue in this subject.
5. The respondents primarily contested the jurisdiction of the NGT to try this matter.
Subsequently, they averred that the contentions of the applicant are based on flawed
facts and there was compliance of responsibilities mentioned in related legislations.
The respondents submitted proofs for their compliance of duties mentioned in the
BMW rules.
6. The NGT after hearing both sides held the hospital and authorities liable for violations
of the rules. NGT ordered that every hospital must submit their annual compliance
report regarding BMW disposal of last 3 years within one week. Further ordered that
the licences of the defaulting hospitals shall be revoked. NGT fined CPCB and SPCB
collectively for Rs. 1 Crore and fined hospital for Rs. 1 crore.
STATEMENT OF FACTS PAGE|VII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE NGT HAD THE JURISDICTION OF THE INSTANT ISSUE?
2. WHETHER THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS NON-MAINTAINABLE?
3. WHETHER THE CPCB IS LIABLE FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF BIO MEDICAL

WASTE RULES?
4. WHETHER THE SPCB IS LIABLE FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF BIO MEDICAL

WASTE RULES?
5. WHETHER THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS LIABLE FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF BIO

MEDICAL WASTE RULES?
6. WHETHER THE MEDFOIL HOSPITAL IS LIABLE FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF BIO

MEDICAL WASTE RULES?
7. WHETHER THE REMAINING HOSPITALS ARE LIABLE FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF

BIO MEDICAL WASTE RULES?
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PAGE|VIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. That the NGT did not have the jurisdiction in the instant matter
The honourable National Green Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction of the instant matter
and therefore the impugned judgement is liable to be quashed and set aside because the NGT
deals with the matters concerning environment however the instant matter is pertaining to
public health and the original petitioner did not approach the concerned authorities who did
have the jurisdiction of the alleged violations.
2. That the present petition is not maintainable
The present petition is not maintainable in this honourable court because the original
application before the Honourable National Green Tribunal was time barred as no such
explanation of huge delay was provided the original applicant has no locus standi in the
present matter.
3. That the CPCB is not liable for the alleged non-compliance of Bio Medical Waste
Rules 2016
The CPCB is not liable for the alleged non-compliance of Bio-Medical Waste Rules 2016
because the issues pertaining to Public Health are the matter of state under constitution,
secondly, the full-compliance of the Bio Medical Rules is not the mandatory duty of the
CPCB, thirdly, the CPCB has fulfilled its responsibilities prescribed in the Bio Medical
Waste rules 2016, fourthly, the CPCB has taken actions against all the violations, fifthly, the
CPCB is not liable for the trans-boundary transportation of the Bio-Medical Waste, sixthly,
penalty cannot be imposed against the CPCB by the NGT, seventhly, the CPCB has the
protection of action taken in good faith under section 32 of the NGT Act, 2010, and lastly, the
CPCB shares the responsibility with other authorities and therefore, cannot be held
accountable solely.
4. That the SPCB is not liable for the alleged non-compliance of the Bio Medical Waste
Rules 2016
The State Pollution Control Board of state of Morgalia is not liable for the alleged non-
compliance of the Bio Medical Waste Rules 2016 because firstly, As the reasons mentioned
in the above contentions in III.II is applicable in the contention of SPCB as well, secondly,
the SPCB has performed the duties mentioned under the Bio Medical Rules and thirdly, the
SPCB performs quasi-judicial duty while performing its duties and therefore, have protection
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS PAGE|IX
under section 32(2).
5. That the State Government is not liable for the alleged non-compliance of the rules
The hospital is not liable for the alleged non-compliance of the rules because firstly, the state
government has fulfilled its responsibilities mentioned in schedule III of the BMW rules,
secondly the state government has been working with due diligence for preventing violations
of the BMW rules and lastly, the state government has fulfilled its duties stipulated in MSW
rules 2016.
6. That the Hospital is not liable for the alleged non-compliance of the rules
The hospital is not liable for the alleged non-compliance of the rules because firstly the
Hospital has performed the duties mentioned in the BMW rules, secondly, the NGT’s order
operates as res judicata, thirdly, the polluters pay doctrine is not applicable to this case,
fourthly the precautionary principle is not applicable to this case, fifthly the order of NGT
violates the doctrine of sustainability, sixthly the hospital is not responsible for the
mishandling of the bio medical waste, seventhly, the basis on which the Original Appellant
approached the Tribunal was not reliable and cannot be admissible before the Court and
lastly, the association of hospitals was not an original respondent in the case before the NGT
and hence there should not be any order against the stakeholder without exercising its right to
be heard.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS PAGE|X

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
II. THAT THE NGT DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION OF THE INSTANT MATTER
1. It is humbly submitted that the honourable National Green Tribunal did not have the
jurisdiction of the instant matter and therefore the impugned judgement is liable to be
quashed and set aside because firstly, (I.I) That the NGT deals with the matters concerning
environment however the instant matter is pertaining to public health, secondly, (I.II) That
the original petitioner did not approach the concerned authorities who did have the
jurisdiction of the alleged violations.
I.I THAT THE NGT DEALS WITH THE MATTERS CONCERNING ENVIRONMENT HOWEVER THE
INSTANT MATTER IS PERTAINING TO PUBLIC HEALTH.
2. It is humbly submitted that the preamble of the National Green Tribunal Act mentions that
the tribunal is set up for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to
environmental protection and conservation of the natural resources including enforcement of
any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to
persons and property and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.1
3. It is humbly submitted Section 2(c) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 mentions
environment includes water, air and the land and inter-relationship, which exists among and
between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism
and property.2
4. It is humbly submitted that the hospitals produce filth and garbage, which have adverse
effects on human body.3 It the waste generated by the hospital is not managed properly, it can
cause potential health hazards to human beings by way of diseases like AIDS, Hepatitis B,
Cancer, Laptospira, a brain infection and disorder in the liver. Therefore, the mishandling of
bio-medical waste can cause severe effect on the human being which can take form of huge
viral disease as being the matter of public health.4
5. It is humbly submitted that both environment and public health are the different issues as
such. Article 47 of Constitution of India mentions duty of the state to raise the level of
1
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Vs. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. and Ors., AIR 2019 SC 1074.
2
Section 2(c), The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
3
Court on its Own Motion Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, [2012] 13 SCR 109.
4
Shailesh Singh v Sheela Hospital and Ors., NGT O/A no.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PAGE|1

nutrition and the standard of living and to improve Public health.5 And article 48-A of
Constitution of India mentions protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding
of forest and wildlife.6 The different mention of both the issues shows the distinction between
both the areas.
6. It is humbly submitted that as the alleged facts also shows that because of mishandling of
the bio-medical waste, the original petitioner has suffered from Tuberculosis disease and had
to stay in hospital for the longer duration.7 The very same alleged facts make it clear that the
mishandling of the bio-medical waste is the issue pertaining to public health.
7. Therefore it is humbly submitted that mishandling of the bio-medical waste is not the
issue of environment and thus the National Green Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction of the
instant matter.
I.II THAT THE ORIGINAL PETITIONERS DID NOT APPROACH THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES
WHO DID HAVE THE JURISDICTION OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.
8. It is humbly submitted that prima facie the original petitioner has approached the
honorable National Green Tribunal for the non-compliance of Bio Medical Rules 2016 by the
Med-Foil Hospital and for the negligence by CPCB, State of Morgalia and SPCB.
9. It is humbly submitted that schedule III of Bio Medical Rules mentions that rule 108 which
is pertaining to refusal of renewal, cancellation or suspension of the authorization by the
prescribed authority is within the purview of the State Pollution Control Board. Thereafter,
schedule III9 again mentions Co-ordination of activities of State Pollution Control Boards as
a duty of Central Pollution Control Board.
10. It is respectfully submitted that the original petitioner was supposed to approach the
SPCB and then the CPCB for seeking relief against the alleged violations. However, the
petitioner has directly approached the Honorable National Green Tribunal which certainly did
not have the jurisdiction of the matter.
11. It is humbly submitted that even after approaching ‘concerned authorities’ for the alleged
violations which might not have given the relief required by the same authorities, the appeal
of the very same would lie to the secretary of the Ministry of Environment of the state or
5
Article 47, Constitution of India.
6
Article 48-A, Constitution of India.
7
Moot Proposition.
8
Schedule III, Bio Medical Waste Rules 2016.
9
Ibid.

Union as per Rule 16 of Bio Medical Rules 2016.10 Moreover, The NGT has passed the
judgment to cancel the license of the hospital and the same is ultra vires as the power to
cancel the same is exclusive power of State Pollution Control Board of the concerned state
after following due procedure.11
12. Therefore, it is most humbly submitted that National Green Tribunal did not have the
jurisdiction in the instant matter.
III. THAT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS NON-MAINTAINABLE
13. It is humbly submitted that the original application was not maintainable in this
honourable court because firstly, (II.I) The original application before the Honourable
National Green Tribunal was time barred as no such explanation of huge delay was provided,
and secondly, (II.II) That the original applicant has no locus standi in the present matter.
II.I THAT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION BEFORE THE NGT WAS TIME BARRED AS NO SUCH
EXPLANATION OF HUGE DELAY WAS PROVIDED.
14. It is humbly submitted that the section 14(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
specifies that no application for the adjudication of dispute under this section shall be
entertained by the tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on
which cause of action for such dispute arose.12
15. It is humbly submitted that in the present matter, the course of action arose on September
2015 when the original petitioner suffered from Tuberculosis because of the mishandling of
Bio-Medical waste.13 The limitation of the same will be considered as February 2016.
However the petition was filed in the NGT in 201814, therefore the same petition is time
barred.
16. It is humbly submitted that even if the sufficient cause can be provided from filling the
application within the same period, allow it to be filed within the said period, allow it to be
filed within in further period nor exceeding sixty days.15 Therefore, even if any reasonable
explanation of delay is provided, the application can be filed by April 2016.
17. Therefore, it is submitted that the application before the Honorable National Green
10
Rule 16, Bio Medical Waste Rules, 2016.
11
Schedule III, Bio Medical Waste Rules, 2016.
12
Section 14(3), The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
13
Moot Proposition.
14
Clarification.
15
Section14(3), The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Tribunal was time barred and the present petition is non-maintainable.
II.II THAT THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT HAS NO LOCUS STANDI IN THE PRESENT MATTER.
18. It is humbly submitted that Many legal systems, particularly in common law and civil law
jurisdiction, accord litigants access to courts to the extent that such litigants have acquired
special or peculiar interest in the claim or that they have suffered or will suffer from the act to
be impugned.16 This is commonly referred to as locus standi or standing to sue. The principle
of locus standi is an age old one that forms the basis of any action in a court of law.
19. It is humbly submitted that Lord Denning in R v. Paddington17 as observed that the court
would not listen, of course, to a mere busybody who was interfering in things which did not
concern him. But it will listen to anyone whose interests are affected by what has been done.
For instance, if a citizen wants to challenge a law, the citizen must first show that he or she is
experiencing harm as a result of that law. In the present fact scenario concerning to non-
compliance of Bio Medical Rules by the concerned authorities has nothing to with the
petitioner who has approached the tribunal.
20. Therefore, it is submitted that the original petitioner has no locus standi in the present
matter and therefore, the original application was non-maintainable.
IV. THAT THE CPCB IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE OF BIO
MEDICAL WASTE RULES 2016
21. It is humbly submitted that the CPCB is not liable for the alleged non-compliance of Bio-
Medical Waste Rules 2016 because firstly, (III.I) That the issues pertaining to Public Health
are the matter of state under constitution, secondly, (III.II) That the full-compliance of the
Bio Medical Rules is not the mandatory duty of the CPCB, thirdly, (III.III) That the CPCB
has fulfilled its responsibilities prescribed in the Bio Medical Waste rules 2016, fourthly,
(III.IV) That the CPCB has taken actions against all the violations, fifthly, (III.V) That the
CPCB is not liable for the trans-boundary transportation of the Bio-Medical Waste, sixthly,
(III.VI) That penalty cannot be imposed against the CPCB by the NGT, seventhly, (III.VII)
That the CPCB has the protection of action taken in good faith under section 32 of the NGT
Act, 2010, and lastly, (III.VIII) That the CPCB shares the responsibility with other authorities
16
(1965) 2 All E.R. 836.
17
A.C. Muthiah Vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India and Ors., , (2011) 6 SCC 617.

and therefore, cannot be held accountable solely.
III.I THAT THE ISSUES PERTAINING TO PUBLIC HEALTH ARE THE MATTER OF STATE UNDER
CONSTITUTION
22. It is humbly submitted that Public Health, Sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries is
mentioned in entry 6 of the state list of the Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India.18 Entry
7th refers to the pilgrimages within India in which case, the provision of health care facilities
comes under the state responsibilities.19 Entry 8th deals with intoxicating of liquors,
manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale etc.20
23. It is humbly submitted that the Constitution of India specifically gives the powers to state
to deal with the matter pertaining to health and public health specifically. Moreover, there is
no such entry that deals with environment in any of the three list therefore gives its legislative
jurisdiction to the state.
24. It is humbly submitted that the duty and the liability to maintain the particular area lies on
either the state or the centre or on both as per the list.21 In the present fact scenario, the duty
and the responsibility to maintain the public health is the task enshrined to the state. The
liability of the state of Morgalia cannot be shifted on the CPCB that is essentially
administrative body of the Centre.
25. Therefore, it is submitted that issues pertaining to the Public Health are the matter of state
under constitution and hence, CPCB is not liable for the alleged non-compliance.
III.II THAT THE FULL-COMPLIANCE OF THE BIO MEDICAL RULES IS NOT THE MANDATORY
DUTY OF THE CPCB
26. It is humbly submitted that the question pertaining in the present fact scenario is of non-
compliance of bio-medical rules 2016&1998. However, it is settled position of law that there
is difference between law that is laid down by the legislature and rules being made by the
18
Entry 6, State List, 7th Schedule, Constitution of India.
19
20
21
Namit Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI), 2013 (1) ABR 10.

certain ministry or administrative body.22
27. It is humbly submitted that an act is a law or the statue which has been passed by the
legislature and approved by the president of the country; however, the rules help in governing
law and are secondary.23 The rules are not mandatory in nature and cannot be enforced or go
beyond the power conferred by the Act or extent the same.24 The Environment Protection Act
nowhere creates liability or mandatory duties on the Central Pollution Control Board for
enforcing any such rules as made by the ministry, and thus are non-mandatory in nature.
28. It is humbly submitted that even if the bio medical rules 2016 are considered as a law
then the duty enshrined in the rules is not the mandatory duty of the Central Pollution Control
Board. CPCB was constituted by The Air Act and The Water Act where the task and
authority of the board is defined.25 However, the CPCB is given additional responsibility to
look after the compliance of the Bio Medical Rules that are made through the provisions of
Environment Protection Act.26
29. It is humbly submitted that it is settled position of law that there is a difference between
responsibility of the statutory body and mandatory duty to compliance with the rights of the
statutory body.27 The former deals with the task being given to the authority to look after
certain things but not under statutory authority and no power or rights are given as such,
however, the later deals with powers given to the statutory authority to make sure certain
things that can be considered as the rights of the body to comply them.
30. It is humbly submitted that the same analogy can be drawn from the difference between
fundamental rights and fundamental duties of the citizen mentioned under the Constitution of
India. The fundamental rights are enforceable however the duties or the responsibilities are
not. No citizen can be charged under any law for non-compliance of the fundamental duties.28
31. Therefore, it is submitted that the full compliance of Bio Medical Rules is not the
mandatory duty of the CPCB and hence, CPCB is not liable for the alleged non-compliance.
III.III THAT THE CPCB HAS FULFILLED ITS RESPONSIBILITIES PRESCRIBED IN THE BIO
MEDICAL WASTE RULES 2016.
22
Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 2015 SC 1571.
23
Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors., 2011 (88) ALR 701.
24
Mukesh and Ors. Vs. State for NCT of Delhi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 2161.
25
The Air Act 1981 and The Water Act 1974.
26
The Environment Act 1986.
27
Ajitsinh Arjunsinh Gohil Vs. Bar Council of Gujarat and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 1927.
28
Manohar Dhonde and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2007(2) ALLMR 717.

32. It is humbly submitted that the responsibilities given to the CPCB under Bio Medical
Rules 2016 are as follows:
(i) Prepare Guidelines on bio-medical waste Management and submit to the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change. (ii) Co-ordination of activities of State Pollution
Control Boards or Pollution Control Committees on biomedical waste. (iii) Conduct training
courses for authorities dealing with management of bio-medical waste. (iv) Lay down
standards for new technologies for treatment and disposal of bio-medical waste (Rule 7) and
prescribe specifications for treatment and disposal of bio-medical wastes (Rule 7). (v) Lay
down Criteria for establishing common biomedical waste treatment facilities in the Country.
(vi) Random inspection or monitoring of health care facilities and common bio-medical waste
treatment facilities (vii) Review and analysis of data submitted by the State Pollution Control
Boards on bio-medical waste and submission of compiled information in the form of annual
report along with its observations to Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change .
(viii) Inspection and monitoring of health care facilities operated by the Director General,
Armed Forces Medical Services (Rule 9). (ix) Undertake or support research or operational
research regarding bio-medical waste.29
33. It is humbly submitted that after inferring from the above mentioned rules, the only
alleged violation as per the fact scenario are violation of (vii) to an extent. All the other
mentioned responsibilities have nothing to do with the alleged violation. It should be taken
into consideration that the CPCB is given the task to collect the data from all the SBCBs and
submit it to the environment ministry. The annexure of the same is attached where the CPCB
has compiled the report and submitted it to the ministry.30
34. It is humbly submitted that it is settled position of law that the statutory body can’t be
made liable for the non-compliance of certain rules until and unless it having certain rights to
regulate the same.31 In the present fact scenario, the CPCB neither have any such
responsibility nor have any such right to regulate efficient implementation of the Bio-Medical
Rules 2016.
35. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the CPCB has completed its responsibilities
mentioned in the Bio Medical Rules and hence, CPCB is not liable for the alleged non-
compliance.
29
ScheduleIII, Bio Medical Waste Rules, 2016.
30
Moot Proposition.
31
Election Commission of India and Ors. Vs. Bajrang Bahadur Singh and Ors., 7, AIR 2016 SC 2301.

III.IV THAT THE CPCB HAS TAKEN ACTIONS AGAINST ALL THE VIOLATIONS.
36. It is humbly submitted that the task in general of the CPCB is the efficient
implementation of the Bio-Medical Rules. The CPCB has maintained the record as of the
violation.32 Moreover, the CPCB has issued the show cause notices to as many as 18,210
defaulters.33 In addition to this, the CPCB has also revoked the license of 589 health care
facilities.34
37. It is humbly submitted that the CPCB have no such regulation or guidelines for which
action to be taken up to what limit. The parallelism can be drawn to the general law where the
highest prescribed penalty is given only in a few cases however; the penalty is decided on the
case to case basis.35 In the same manner, it is on the board to decide the action against the
defaulters. In that case, the CPCB has already initiated action and revoked license in few
cases, therefore, fulfilled its duty.
38. Therefore, the CPCB has taken sufficient action against all the violations and hence,
CPCB is not liable for the alleged non-compliance.
III.V THAT THE CPCB IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE TRANS-BOUNDARY TRANSPORTATION OF
BIO MEDICAL WASTE.
39. It is humbly submitted that the law concerning the trans-boundary violations of the bio
medical waste is bio medical rules 2016 itself as it covers transportation of the bio-medical
rules.36 However, the duty to oversee the transportation of the Bio Medical Waste is of
municipality and the SPCB of the concerned state.37
40. It is humbly submitted that the CPCB is not vicariously liable for any alleged non-
compliance of responsibilities of the SPCB.38 The CPCB has to only monitor the reports of
compliance by health care facilities as per the rules and therefore do not have any legal
obligation to monitor the same.39
41. The Basel Convention on the Control of Trans boundary movements of Hazardous
33
34
Ibid.
35
Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. D.L.F. United, (2000) 162 CTR (SC) 178.
36
Section 2, Bio Medical Waste Rules, 2016.
37
38
:In Re: Noise Pollution - Implementation of the Laws for restricting use of loudspeakers and high volume
producing sound systems, AIR 2005 SC 3136.
39

Wastes and their disposal was designed to reduce the trans-boundary movements of
hazardous waste and specifically to prevent the transfer of hazardous waste from developed
to less developed countries.40 However, our country being a signatory have yet to ratify the
treaty and so therefore, the same does not apply to the CPCB yet.41
42. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the CPCB is not liable for the trans-boundary
movement of Bio Medical Waste and hence, CPCB is not liable for the alleged non-
compliance.
I.VI THAT THE PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED AGAINST THE CPCB BY THE NGT.
43. It is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal was enacted through
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.42 The power of the hon’ble NGT under section 15 of
the act is to provide the relief or compensation for the implementation of the enactments
specified under schedule I.43 The same does not mention Bio Medical Rules but Environment
Protection Act. The provisions of Bio Medical waste rules 1998 or 2016 does not apply for
any such penalty.44
44. It is humbly submitted that the provision is for the relief and compensation and not for the
penalty. The penalty can only be imposed in the default of the relief been provided under
section 15.45 Moreover, the compensation can only be imposed against an individual and not
against the body who’s regulating the compliance.46
45. It is humbly submitted that Schedule II of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
mentions the heads under which compensation or relief for damage may be claimed. 47 No
such heads under the specified schedule has been satisfied in the present case where
compensation can be claimed. The penalty being imposed against the statutory body for the
alleged non-compliance is ultra vires.
46. Therefore, it is submitted that the penalty cannot be imposed against the CPCB by the
NGT and hence, CPCB is not liable for the alleged non-compliance.
40
Basel Convention.
41
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/indepth/basel-convention-tenth-conference-of-parties-begins-monday-34274
42
The NGT Act, 2010.
43
Section 15, The NGT Act, 2010.
44
The Bio Medical Waste Rules, 2016.
45
Section 15, The NGT Act, 2016.
46
Central India AYUSH Drugs Manufacturers Association and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR
2016 Bom 261.
47
Schedule II, The NGT Act, 2010.

III.VII THAT THE CPCB HAS THE PROTECTION OF ACTION TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH UNDER
SECTION 32 OF THE NGT ACT, 2010.
47. It is humbly submitted that section 32(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
mentions that: 32(1) No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against the employees of the
Central Government or a state Government or any statutory authority, for anything which is
in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this act or any rule or order made
thereunder.48
48. It is humbly submitted that it is settled position of law that act by an individual or a body
is presumed to be done in good faith until and unless contrary proved.49 In the present fact
scenario, CBCP has monitored all the SBCBs, issued show cause notices and performed all
the responsibilities enshrined to it under the act.
49. It is humbly submitted that in such a situation where a statutory body has performed its
responsibility efficiently, the Central Pollution Control Board will be protected in accordance
with section 32(1) of The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 as it is a statutory authority who
has performed it’s task efficiently and there are no such circumstances that proves its action
being done in mala fide manner and thus no penalty can be imposed on it.
50. Therefore, it is submitted that the CPCB has the protection of action taken in good faith
under section 32 of the NGT Act, 2010 and hence, CPCB is not liable for the alleged non-
compliance.
III.VIII THAT THE CPCB SHARES THE RESPONSIBILITY WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES AND
THEREFORE, CANNOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE SOLELY.
51. It is humbly submitted that the compliance of Bio-Medical rules 2016 is not the sole
responsibility of the CERC. Schedule III of The Bio Medical Rules 2016 gives the
responsibility to Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India,
Central or State Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Central Ministry for Animal
Husbandry and Veterinary or State Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary,
Ministry of Defence, Central Pollution Control Board, State Government of Health or Union
Territory Government or Administration, State Pollution Control Boards or Pollution Control
48
Section 32(1), The NGT Act, 2010.
49
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., : 2002 (83) ECC 85.

Committees, Municipalities or Corporations, Urban Local Bodies and Gram Panchayats. 50
52. It is humbly submitted that even though the responsibility for the compliance of the Bio
Medical Rules is of above mentioned seven authorities however, the petitioner has only
included three authorities as a party to the matter and hon’ble National Green Tribunal has
imposed penalty on only three of the seven authorities without any classification. The same is
in violation of principles of natural justice and the penalty cannot be imposed solely on them.
53. Therefore, it is submitted that the CPCB shares the responsibility with other authorities
and therefore, cannot be held accountable solely and hence, CPCB is not liable for the alleged
non-compliance.
V. THAT THE SPCB IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE BIO
MEDICAL WASTE RULES 2016.
54. It is humbly submitted that the State Pollution Control Board of state of Moro.. is not
liable for the alleged non-compliance of the Bio Medical Waste Rules 2016 because firstly
(IV.I) As the reasons mentioned in the above contentions in III.II is applicable in the
contention of SPCB as well, secondly, (IV.II) That the SPCB has performed the duties
mentioned under the Bio Medical Rules, thirdly, (IV.III) That the SPCB performs quasi-
judicial duty while performing its duties and therefore, have protection under section 32(2).
IV.I THAT THE AS THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS IN III.II IS
APPLICABLE IN THE CONTENTION OF SPCB AS WELL.
55. It is humbly submitted that the SBCP is not liable for the alleged non-compliance because
of the reasons mentioned in III.II.
IV.II THAT THE SPCB HAS PERFORMED THE DUTIES MENTIONED UNDER THE BIO MEDICAL
RULES
56. It is humbly submitted that the duties mentioned under Bio-Medical Rules of the SPCB
are (i) Inventorisation of Occupiers and data on bio-medical waste generation, treatment &
disposal. (ii) Compilation of data and submission of the same in annual report to Central
Pollution Control Board within the stipulated time period. (iii) Grant and renewal, suspension
or refusal cancellation or of authorisation under these rules (Rule 7, 8 and 10). (iv)
Monitoring of compliance of various provisions and conditions of authorisation. (v) Action
50
Schedule III, Bio Medical Waste Rules, 2016.

against health care facilities or common biomedical waste treatment facilities for violation of
these rules (Rule 18). (vi) Organizing training programmes to staff of health care facilities
and common bio-medical waste treatment facilities and State Pollution Control Boards or
Pollution Control Committees Staff on segregation, collection, storage, transportation,
treatment and disposal of bio-medical wastes. (vii) Undertake or support research or
operational research regarding bio-medical waste management. (viii) Any other function
under these rules assigned by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change or
Central Pollution Control Board from time to time. (ix) Implementation of recommendations
of the Advisory Committee. (x) Publish the list of Registered or Authorised (or give consent)
Recyclers. (xi) Undertake and support third party audits of the common bio-medical waste
treatment facilities in their State.51
57. It is humbly submitted that after inferring from the above mentioned rules, the only
alleged violation as per the fact scenario are violation of Grant and renewal, suspension or
refusal cancellation or of authorisation under these rules (Rule 7, 8 and 10). (iv) Monitoring
of compliance of various provisions and conditions of authorisation. (v) Action against health
care facilities or common biomedical waste treatment facilities for violation of these rules
(Rule 18).52
58. It is humbly submitted that the State Pollution Control Board has mentioned in the
records submitted by them as to how many grants have been done. The board has also
mentioned about the defaulters and what proceedings have been initiated against them. The
annexure of the same is attached where the SPCB has compiled the report and submitted it to
the ministry.53
59. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the SPCB has completed its responsibilities
mentioned in the Bio Medical Rules and hence, SPCB is not liable for the alleged non-
compliance.
IV.III THAT THE SPCB PERFORMS QUASI-JUDICIAL DUTY WHILE PERFORMING ITS DUTIES
AND THEREFORE, HAVE PROTECTION UNDER SECTION 32(2).
60. It is humbly submitted that the section 32(2) of the NGT act reads as “No suit,
prosecution, or other legal proceeding shall lie against the chairperson or Judicial Member or
the Tribunal or any other person authorized by the Judicial Member or the Expert Member
51
Ibid.
52
Rule 7, 8, 10, 18, Bio Medical Waste Rules, 2016.
53
Annexure, Moot Proposition.

for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this act or any
rule or order made thereunder.54
61. It is humbly submitted that the essential ingredients of the Quassi Judicial Body is where
a body is authorized to use its conscious so as to decide whether certain action can be taken
or not under set of guidelines in good faith.55 The State Pollution Control Board has fulfilled
all the essential ingredients and therefore cannot be held liable by the NGT.
62. Therefore, the SPCB performs Quassi Judicial duty while performing its duties and have
protection under 32(2) and thus cannot be held liable for the non-compliance.
VI. THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED NON-
COMPLIANCE OF THE RULES.
63. It is humbly submitted that prima facie, the NGT has not pronounced any order
specifically against the State Government. Hence, in the instant case no liability arises on the
part of State Government.
64. It is humbly submitted that the hospital is not liable for the alleged non-compliance of the
rules because firstly, (V.I) the state government has fulfilled its responsibilities mentioned in
schedule III of the BMW rules, thirdly (V.II) the state government has been working with due
diligence for preventing violations of the BMW rules and lastly (V.III) the state government
has fulfilled its duties stipulated in MSW rules 2016.
V.I THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS FULFILLED ITS RESPONSIBILITIES MENTIONED IN
SCHEDULE III OF THE BMW RULES
65. It is humbly submitted that the contentions made by the respondent are false. The State
Government, represented through the collector, has fulfilled its duties mentioned in schedule
III of the BMW rules, 2016. There was no way in which the respondent could have such
detailed particulars. Even if accepted in face value, the contentions made by the respondent
are purely out of ill will and is a conscious move for seeking vengeance from the heath care
facilities and the authorities.
66. Rule 4 provides the duties of occupier of a health care facility.56 The duties include taking
steps towards managing bio-medical waste generated from the heath care facilities, treatment
of the waste in accordance with methods stipulated in schedule I and segregating waste in
54
Section 32(2), The NGT Act, 2010.
55
Competition Commission of India Vs. Bharti Airtel Limited and Ors., AIR 2019 SC 113.
56
Rule 4, Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016.

colour coded bags at source and disposing it of at the CBWTF.57 In the present case, waste
generated by the hospital is being collected, segregated at source in colour coded bags and
then disposed of in secured land of common facility.
67. Rule 5 stipulates the duties of the operator of the CBWTF.58 The CBWTF has the
responsibility to collect the segregated waste from the generation spot, transport, handle,
store treat and dispose of the waste in accordance of the BMW rules. It additionally includes
timely collection of medical waste from the occupier, ensuring treatment of the waste as
prescribed in Schedule I, etc.59 In the instant case, the operator of common treatment facility
has been duly performing its duties by segregating the waste at source and disposing it of at
the site of common facility by using chemical treatment and deep burial methodology and
hence, no mixing activity with MSW is being done.60 The operator has prior approval for
treatment by deep burial method as nothing contrary is alleged as such. The waste is being
disposed of at the identified site in village Samuel.61 Further, it is submitted that the liability
of the operator was limited till handling and disposing the medical waste which it has duly
performed.
68. Rule 17 (1) of the BMW Rules provides that the department of business allocation in the
State Government would be responsible for providing suitable land for setting up of common
bio-medical and disposal facility.62 In the present case a common waste treatment plant us
already in service since 2007-08 and a suitable land of one acre has been provided by the
municipal corporation of state of Morgalia.63 The site of dumping of waste has been
identified by the municipal authorities in village Samuel near Broski, in Daniel district, State
of Morgalia.64
69. Therefore, it is submitted that the provisions of the BMW rules have been implemented
by the stakeholders and hence, state government has fulfilled its duties stipulated in schedule
III of the BMW rules.
V.II THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH DUE DILIGENCE FOR
PREVENTING VIOLATIONS OF THE BMW RULES
57
Ibid.
58
59
Ibid.
60
Para 23, Moot Proposition.
61
62
Rule 17(1), Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016.
63
64
Ibid.

70. It is humbly submitted that schedule III casts a duty on the State Government of health to
ensure implementation of rule in all health care facilities or occupiers. Environmental liability
on any entity cannot be levied if duty was performed with due diligence. 65 Nothing contrary
is alleged about the formulation of the state and district level advisory committees and hence,
is taken in good faith that the advisory committees have been formulated by the State
Governments to ensure implementation of the rules at state or district level in health care
facilities. Hence, the onus is on the committees to come up with recommendations for proper
implementation of the rules in all heath care facilities. In the present scenario, all
precautionary and preventive measures have been initiated to control pollution by medical
waste with safeguards.66
71. It is humbly submitted that the State Pollution Control Board works at the supervision of
the State Government. The State Government of morgalia has been constantly supervising the
role of SPCB. The SPCB of morgalia has been duly performing its duties as stipulated in the
BMW rules. Among other things, the SPCB of Morgalia has given authorisation to several
common bio medical treatment facilities. Some of the operators are M/s Adam Gomes
BioMac which has been established since 2010 in industrial area, Pirian and Aroma social
service Sansthan, in district Carth is also engaged since 2010.
72. It is humbly submitted that Schedule III of the BMW rules casts the duty of collection of
other solid waste from health care facilities on the Municipal Corporation which comes under
the purview of State Government.67 In the instant case, the petitioners have submitted a report
which proves the fact that they are implementing the provision of segregation, transportation,
collection and safe disposal of MSW.68
73. Therefore, the State Government has been working with due diligence in preventing
violations of the BMW rules.
V.III THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS FULFILLED ITS DUTIES STIPULATED IN MSW
RULES 2016.
74. It is humbly submitted that rule 12 of the Solid Waste Management rules, 2016 provides
that the district collector shall facilitate allocation of suitable land as per Rule 1169 for setting
65
Section 17, Environment Protection Act, 1986.
66
67
Schedule III, Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016.
68
69
Rule 11 (f), Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.

up solid waste disposal facility to local authorities.70 In the instant case, a land area in village
Samuel near Broski, in Daniel district was identified as the site of dumping and disposal of
garbage or municipal waste by the Municipal Authorities.71
75. Therefore, it has been proved with the help of above arguments that the BMW rules have
been implemented in the state of morgalia, proving the compliance of respective duty of
ensuring compliance of the provisions by the State Government.
V.IV THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS FULFILLED ITS DUTY UNDER PUBLIC TRUST
DOCTRINE
76. It is humbly submitted that Public trust doctrine serves two purposes: it mandates
affirmative state action for effective management of resources and empowers citizens to
question ineffective management of natural resources. It is a common law concept, defined
and addressed by judiciary in India. Various common properties; including rivers, the
seashore, and the air, are held by the government in trusteeship for the uninterrupted use of
the public. The sovereign could not, therefore, transfer public trust properties to a private
party if the grant would interfere with the public interest.
77. It is humbly submitted that in the instant matter, the government has formulated various
rules and regulations and formed various statutory bodies for handling such hazardous
substance and therefore fulfilled its duty. Moreover, the state has not transferred it river to
private body and the hospital was never granted any such hospital.
78. Therefore, it is submitted that the state government has fulfilled its duty under public trust
doctrine.
VII. THAT THE HOSPITAL IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE
RULES
79. It is humbly submitted that the hospital is not liable for the alleged non-compliance of the
rules because firstly (VI.I) the Hospital has performed the duties mentioned in the BMW
rules, secondly, (VI.II) the NGT’s order operates as res judicata, thirdly (VI.III) the polluters
pay doctrine is not applicable to this case, fourthly (VI.IV) the precautionary principle is not
applicable to this case, fifthly (VI.V) the order of NGT violates the doctrine of sustainability,
sixthly (VI.VI) the hospital is not responsible for the mishandling of the bio medical waste,
70
Rule 12 (a), Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
71
Ibid

seventhly, (VI.VII) the basis on which the Original Appellant approached the Tribunal was
not reliable and cannot be admissible before the Court and lastly (VI.VIII) the association of
hospitals was not an original respondent in the case before the NGT and hence there should
not be any order against the stakeholder without exercising its right to be heard.
VI.I THAT THE HOSPITAL HAS PERFORMED THE DUTIES MENTIONED IN THE BMW RULES.
80. It is humbly submitted that rule 4 of the BMW rules stipulates the duties of the occupier
of the health care facility. 72 The duties of the occupier are, among others, to take necessary
steps to ensure that the BMW is handled without affecting the environment, pre-treat medical
waste and then sending it to CBWTF, making premises and storing segregated bio medical
waste in different colour coded bags and bins, etc.73
81. In the instant case, the hospital authorities have complied with the duties mentioned in
rule 4 of the BMW rules, 2016.74 The hospital has submitted the compliance report for the
same.75 The duty of the hospital was limited till the point of segregation as mentioned in the
BMW rules.76 Further, it is submitted that the common bio medical waste treatment and
disposal facilities have been authorised by the hospital for dealing in collection,
transportation, treatment and scientific disposal of bio medical waste.77
82. Therefore, the hospital has performed the duties mentioned in the BMW rules, 2016.
VI.II THAT THE SPCB’S DECISION OPERATES AS RES JUDICATA
83. It is humbly submitted that the matter regarding the violation of the BMW rules, if any,
were adjudged by the SPCB and CPCB in exercise of the powers given to the under the
BMW rules. The reports were submitted by the hospital to the prescribed authority under rule
13 of the BMW rules.78 The SPCB/CPCB has taken necessary actions by issuance of notice,
etc. for the violations of the by the hospital. The due procedure established by law was upheld
by the hospital authorities, SPCB and CPCB. Imposition of penalty by the NGT puts the
hospital in the same course of action again.
72
73
Ibid.
74
75
Annexure 03 of the Moot Proposition.
76
77
78
Rule 13, Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016; Para 12, Moot Proposition.

84. It is settled law that the decision of statutory bodies may operate as res judicata. 79 Only a
writ petition or appeal to specified authority mentioned in the statute can be made to
challenge the decision of statutory bodies.80 In the instant case SPCB and CPCB are statutory
bodies and its decision shall operate as res judicata. Moreover, the appeal of such decision
may only lie either with the Secretary (Environment) of the State Government or Union
territory administration81 or the ministry of environment, forest and climate change. 82 The
order of NGT undermines the applicability of decisions given by SPCB and CPCB and the
appellate jurisdiction of MoEF.
85. Hence, the order of NGT is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the
principle of res judicata.
VI.III THAT THE POLLUTERS PAY DOCTRINE DOESN’T APPLY TO THIS CASE
87. It is humbly submitted that the hospital would not be liable under the polluter pays
doctrine. The polluter is defined as the person or entity responsible for the polluting activity.
In the instant case, the hospital has not been involved in any activities that caused pollution in
the environment except some instances. The hospital authorities have fulfilled their limited
duties for the disposal of bio-medical waste management as argued above. Hence, the
hospital is not liable under the polluter pays doctrine.
88. Further, even if the hospitals have violated certain provisions of different legislations, the
punishment in terms of fine or any other have been imposed or will have to be imposed
within the prescribed damages mentioned in the respective act or rules. The statutes already
prescribe the standards for prevention and control of pollution. The damages provided in the
acts or rules are itself the incorporation of polluter pays doctrine. There is no need to make
the hospitals liable differentially under the polluter pays doctrine. Hence, the contentions of
the respondent for liability of hospitals under the polluter pays doctrine are irrational.
89. Moreover, the Supreme Court has raised concerns over the court’s competence to
determine the compensations payable under the doctrine of polluter pays. 83 The task of
assessment of the loss resulting from the polluting activity and determination of the amount
payable by the polluter for reversing the environmental damage and the compensation
79
Gulam Abbas and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1982) 1 SCC 71; Union of India v Braham Pal
Singh, RSA No. 184 of 2016, Delhi High Court.
80
Ibid.
81
82
Schedule III – Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016.
83
Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action v. Union of India and Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 212.

payable by the polluter to the victims is in itself a crucial task. It is very easily found to be
arbitrary towards the victim.
90. Therefore, the incorporation of polluter pays doctrine is unreasonable in the present case.
VI.IV THAT THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE
91. It is humbly submitted that the precautionary principle was merely an obiter in the
Vellore case84 where it was mentioned the first time.85 It developed the idea of precaution
which is a narrow concept from that of prevention which is a broader concept. The
foundation of the precautionary principle lies on flawed grounds and makes it unreasonable
to be applied in other fact scenarios. The precautionary principle has been used by the courts
to support a position that reflects the intuitive good sense that it is better to be safer than
sorry.86 However, such skewed argument cannot be held to be a reasonably good law.
92. In the instant case, the hospital authorities have acted with due diligence to perform their
duties mentioned in the bio-medical rules. Violations of the rules, if any, were only with
negligible toxic effluents.87 Hence, the hospital would not be liable under the precautionary
principle.
VI.V THAT THE ORDER OF NGT VIOLATES THE DOCTRINE OF SUSTAINABILITY
86. It is humbly submitted that hospitals are very essential institutions that help to achieve
sustainability in heath. Sustainability aims to promote healthy, viable, and equitable
communities. With the increasing number of diagnosis of patients in the entire country by the
private health care sector,88 it is imperative to maintain the number of health care facilities at
an increasing rate.89 In the instant case, the NGT orders to cancel the licenses of many
hospitals who would merely fail to submit annual compliance report.90 The order of the NGT
goes against the path to sustainable development because it reduces the availability of health
care institution in the capital region of the country. Hence, the imposition of huge fine and
revocation of license is unreasonable.
84
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 647.
85
SHIBANI GHOSH, INDIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: KEY CONCEPTS AND PINCIPLES, 206.
86
See, Courts on its own motion v UOI 2013 3 SCC 247 (Cited precaution as a reason to direct better
arrangements for amaranth yatra); M. Palaniswamy v State of Tamil Nadu (2012) SCC OnLine Mad 2125 (cited
precaution as a justification for upholding additional government licensing requirements).
87
Report 2, Annexure 1 of the Moot Proposition.
88
Amit Sengupta, Samiran Nundy, The private health sector in India, BMJ 2005 Nov 19; 331(7526): 1157–
1158.
89
National Health Policy 2017, Ministry of Health and Family Affairs.
90

VI.VI THAT THE HOSPITAL IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISHANDLING OF THE BIO
MEDICAL WASTE
93. It is humbly submitted that the task to properly dispose the bio medical waste is not the
sole task of the hospital. The hospital gives their waste to CBMWTF for the segregation,
transportation, collection and safe disposal of MSW as well as bio medical waste separately
with enforcement of the provisions of the Rules. The task of the hospital is limited to
segregation of the waste in different dustbins and thereafter handles it to CBMWTF.
94. It is humbly submitted that in the instant matter, Medfoil hospital has appointed a
CBMWTF and it covers all the implementation of the bio medfoil hospital. The hospital has
completed its responsibility by appointing a CBMWTF and therefore its liability is limited. In
the instant case, the hospital has complied with its duty of segregation of the BMW waste.
Any further violation should be alleged against that CBMWTF and medfoil will not be
responsible for that mishandle.
95. Therefore, it is submitted that the hospital is not responsible for the mishandling of the
bio medical waste.
VI.VII THAT THE BASIS ON WHICH THE ORIGINAL APPELLANT APPROACHED THE
TRIBUNAL WAS NOT RELIABLE AND CANNOT BE ADMISSIBLE BEFORE THE COURT
96. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the basis on which Mr Satyajeet
Ghosh had approached the National Green Tribunal91, i.e. the report allegedly published by
the SPCB92 cannot be treated as the sole credible source due to its inaccurate nature.
97. A bare perusal of the report93 shows that it is rife with fallacies and flaws throughout. It
must be noted that in any matter pertaining to BMW Rules, which has several strictly
prescribed limits for each kind of waste, calculations must be made in the most accurate
manner possible in order to ensure a certain degree of credibility. In the given report by the
SPCB of Morgalia, it is evident that neither the numbers for neither ‘total treatment capacity’,
nor ‘total waste treated and disposed’ add up according to the figures published. Furthermore,
in several places the amounts given for the same figures are also inaccurate, thereby bringing
down the reliability of the report itself.
91
Moot Proposition.
92
Annexure, Moot Proposition.
93
Arjun Gopal and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2018 SC 5731.

VI.VIII THAT THE ASSOCIATION OF HOSPITALS WAS NOT AN ORIGINAL RESPONDENT IN THE
CASE BEFORE THE NGT AND HENCE THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY ORDER AGAINST THE
STAKEHOLDER WITHOUT EXERCISING ITS RIGHT TO BE HEARD
98. It is humbly submitted that the principles of natural justice are of utmost importance in
any judicial matter; and that Audi Alteram Partem (right to be heard) is a fundamental part of
these principles. In the petition by the Original Applicant before the NGT, the association of
hospitals was not an Original Respondent and therefore was not represented during the initial
proceedings. Thus, despite being an important stakeholder, the association was aggrieved due
to a disproportionate and unfair order being passed against it, despite not being given its right
to be heard in the trial. Hence, it is submitted that the association of hospitals was not an
original respondent in the case before the NGT and hence there should not be any order
against the stakeholder without exercising its right to be heard.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is humbly requested that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
8. That the NGT did not have the jurisdiction of the instant issue.
Or
9. That the original application was non-maintainable.
Or
10. That the CPCB is not liable for the non-compliance of Bio Medical Waste Rules.
11. That the SPCB is not liable for the non-compliance of Bio Medical Waste Rules.
12. That the State Government is not liable for the non-compliance of Bio Medical Waste
Rules.
13. That the MedFoil Hospital is not liable for the non-compliance of Bio Medical Waste
Rules.
14. That the remaining hospitals are not liable for the non-compliance of Bio Medical
Waste Rules.
And pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the petitioner shall duty-bound forever pray.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Petitioners.
PRAYER PAGE|22

Petitioner Final AA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Petitioner Final AA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner Final AA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Code – TM15

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT, ARESE

IN THE MATTER OF:

MED-FOIL HOSPITAL AND ORS………………………………………………….PETITIONER

MR. SATYAJEET GHOSH……………………………………….……………….RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ i

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................................vii

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................... viii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................. ix

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................... 1

II. That the original application was non-maintainable ....................................................... 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE|I

VI.II That the SPCB’s decision operates as res judicata ................................................. 17

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE|II

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE|III

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS PAGE|IV

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES PAGE|V

Article 136 of Indian Constitution:

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION PAGE|VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS PAGE|VII

1. WHETHER THE NGT HAD THE JURISDICTION OF THE INSTANT ISSUE?

2. WHETHER THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS NON-MAINTAINABLE?

3. WHETHER THE CPCB IS LIABLE FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF BIO MEDICAL

4. WHETHER THE SPCB IS LIABLE FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF BIO MEDICAL

5. WHETHER THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS LIABLE FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF BIO

6. WHETHER THE MEDFOIL HOSPITAL IS LIABLE FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF BIO

7. WHETHER THE REMAINING HOSPITALS ARE LIABLE FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PAGE|VIII

2. That the present petition is not maintainable

under section 32(2).

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS PAGE|X

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PAGE|1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PAGE|2

III. THAT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS NON-MAINTAINABLE

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PAGE|3

Tribunal was time barred and the present petition is non-maintainable.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PAGE|4

and therefore, cannot be held accountable solely.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PAGE|5

certain ministry or administrative body.22

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PAGE|6

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PAGE|7

BIO MEDICAL WASTE.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PAGE|8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PAGE|9

THEREFORE, CANNOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE SOLELY.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PAGE|10

Committees, Municipalities or Corporations, Urban Local Bodies and Gram Panchayats. 50

APPLICABLE IN THE CONTENTION OF SPCB AS WELL.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PAGE|11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PAGE|12

COMPLIANCE OF THE RULES.

SCHEDULE III OF THE BMW RULES

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PAGE|13

PREVENTING VIOLATIONS OF THE BMW RULES