Section Title

Main Content Link

Important High Court/Supreme Court Orders
(5) Consumer Welfare Association V/s Union Of India & Ors
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
 (PIL) WRIT PETITION (Lodg.) No. 1952 OF 2005

Consumer Welfare Association .... Petitioner

Versus

Union Of India & Ors .... Respondents

     
Mr.Rajiv Chavan with Ms. Lucy Massey for the Petitioner.

Mr. B.A. Desai, Addl.Solicitor General with Ms S.V.Bharucha

And Ms. Naveena Kumar for Respondent No.1

Mr, Amjad Sayed, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent No.2

Ms. Priti Purandare for Respondent No.3

Mrs. Sadhana Mahashabde for Respondent No.4

Ms. Sommya Srikrishna i/by M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for Respondent No.5

     
CORAM: DALVEER BHANDARI C.J. &

S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 14, 2005

  1. The petitioner, Voluntary Consumer Association, has filed this petition with the prayer that respondent No.4 i.e. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, be directed to formulate guidelines for the treatment of Bio-Medical Waste (for short,”BMW”). The petitioner has also prayed that respondent No.3, Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, be directed to strictly follow the comprehensive rule of med-waste management and disposal.
  2. It is also prayed that respondent No.3 be directed to have the city scavenged and cleaned every day.
  3. The petitioner has further prayed that respondent No.2 State of Maharashtra, respondent NO.3, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and respondent No.4, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, be directed to construct and install incinerators in all hospitals/ nursing homes with 50 beds and above under their administrative control. The petitioner has also prayed that the Maharashtra Pollution control Board be directed to regularly make inspections of med-waste disposal sites
  4. The petitioner has also prayed that Doordarshan be directed to undertake programmes of educating the people about their duties and responsibilities and action be taken against erring hospitals.
  5. The petitioner, during the course of submission, has prayed that respondent no.2 State of Maharashtra, be directed to give reply on the following specific queries:-

     

  1. How many disposal/ incineration centres are provided by various Municipal Corporations / Municipal Councils / Zilla Parishads all over Maharashtra?
  2. St. George’s Hospital – Whether process of purchase of Auto-Clave has been completed?
  3. What kind of training has been given to Class-IV employees of GOM’s hospitals about dealing with BMW? And when ?
  4. Whether the government hospitals are regularly sending BMW to common facility. The Secretary (Health) be directed to file detailed affidavit about handling of BMW in the government hospitals all over Maharashtra.
  5. Management of BMW should also form part of educational curriculam, particularly in medical and nursing courses. Has Government of Maharashtra taken necessary steps in this direction?
  6. What steps the Government of Maharashtra’s Health & Urban Development Department has taken to facilitate development of common facility of management of BMW as per rules and guidelines in various Corporations and “A” class towns?
  7. The petitioner has also prayed that respondent No.3, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, be directed to give reply to the following specific queries:-

     

  1. How many common disposal facilities / incineration facility centers are presently being run by BMC?
  2. How many hospitals BMC have entered into agreements with to collect and transport BMW and Dispose of ?
  3. Whether the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board had taken action against the incinerator installed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai because of poor performance and violations of emission norms.
  4. What is the present position about the said incinerator?
  5. The petitioner has also prayed that respondent No.4, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board be directed to answer the following specific queries:-

     
a.Guidelines published by CPCB for common BMW facilities stipulate that there should be one incinerator for 10,000 beds and facility should cater to surrounding area in 150 km. radius. Whether the Board has conducted any evaluation of performance of incinerators in individual hospitals and /or common facilities in the State? If not, then how much time will it take to complete the task?
b.Details of cases be given in which the Board has taken legal action including closure and prosecution against BMW generators, which neither have facilities to treat BMW as per rules nor became members of common facility?
c.In most of the Corporation areas and the “A” Class towns
     
i. Whether the incinerator facility has temperature recorder and
ii. Whether segregation of waste is not proper? What steps the Board has taken to improve this situation?
8. We have perused these queries. These queries go to the root of the matter therefore we would like respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 to file comprehensive affidavit dealing with afore-mentioned queries within two weeks with an advance copy of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who would be at liberty to file rejoinder, if any, before the next date.
9. List this P. L. l. again on 5 th October, 2005 for further direction.
     

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

S.J. VAZIFDAR, J