Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai and Justice Soni Shrivastava passed a 2-page long order dated June 15, 2026 in a case from 2017, wherein, it recorded that the State-respondents, submitted that the affidavits with regard to the District Monitoring Committee of Sheohar, Saran, Sitamarhi, Banka, Aurangabad, Samastipur and Kishanganj have been filed. However, with regard to the other districts, a report is yet to be filed. The counsel for the State-respondents undertook to file a report for the remaining districts during the course of two weeks. The counsel for the respondent no. 3-Bihar State Pollution Control Board submits that 169 units of Health Care Facilities have complied with the directions to dispose of the bio-medical waste in terms of the existing Rules i.e. 2016 Rules. The counsel undertook to file a supplementary counter affidavit specifying the total number of such units, units that are compliant and non-compliant units. The counsel also gave an undertaking to specify as to what steps are taken by the respondent no. 3-Bihar State Pollution Control Board towards non-compliant units. The Division Bench's order reads: "4. Let such affidavit be filed by respondent no. 3-Bihar State Pollution Control Board during the course of two weeks. The matter is listed for hearing on July 13, 2026." Chief Justice Rai joined the High Court on June 5, 2026. The Court opened after vacation on June 15, 2026.
Prior to this on April 20, 2026, the Court had passed a 11-page long order, wherein, it took note of partial compliance with its direction to a responsible officer of the State for filing an affidavit collecting data from each District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Level Monitory Committee of all the Districts.
The listed respondents are: Principal Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Principal DMCH, Darbhanga, Principal PMCH, Patna, Principal NMCH, Patna, Principal JLNMCH, Bhagalpur, Principal SKMCH, Muzaffarpur, Principal ANMCH, Gaya, Principal, Bettiah Medical College and Hospital Bettiah, Superintendent, DMCH, Darbhanga, Superintendent, PMCH, Patna, Superintendent, NMCH, Patna, Superintendent, JLNMCH, Bhagalpur, Superintendent, SKMCH, Muzaffarpur, Superintendent, ANMCH, Gaya, Superintendent, Bettiah Medical College and Hospital Bettiah and Member Secretary, Central Polution Control Board, Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi.
In a 11-page long order dated March 30, 026 the Court observed that Rule 12(4) of 2016 Rules provides for the State Government to constitute District Level Monitoring Committee in the districts, under the Chairmanship of District Collector or District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner or Additional District Magistrate to monitor the compliance of the provisions of the rules in the HCF generating bio-medical waste and in the common bio-medical waste treatment and disposal facilities, where the bio-medical waste is treated and disposed off. Sub Rule (5) of Rule 12 of 2016 Rules provides that the District Level Monitoring Committee constituted under Sub-Rule (4) shall submit its report once in six months to the State Advisory Committee and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded to the State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee concerned for taking further necessary action.
The counsel for the Board informed that in each of the districts, District Level Monitoring Committee is functioning. However, the counsel was unable to say whether such Committee is submitting its reports once in six months to the State Advisory Committee or not in view of Rule 12(5) of 2016 Rules. Rule 18 of 2016 Rules provides for the liability of the occupier or an operator of a common clearly stated that the occupier or an operator of a common bio-medical waste treatment facility shall be liable for all the damages caused to the environment or public due to improper handling of bio-medical waste. It further provides that the occupier or the operator of common bio-medical waste treatment facility shall be liable for action under Section 5 and Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) 1986 Act. Section 5 of the 1986 Act empowers the Central Government to issue directions in writing to any person, officer or any authority and such person, officer or authority shall be bound to comply with such direction. The power to issue direction includes the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process, stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water or any other service. Similarly, section 15 of 1986 Act deals with penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act, Rules, Orders and Directions. Therefore, from the affidavit filed by the State Board, it became clear that 3450 Health Care Facilities have not complied with the provisions of 2016 Rules and have not taken any steps in spite of the fact that show-cause notices were issued to them and there is a State Level Monitoring Committee as per Section 12 constituted in every district as submitted by the counsel for the State Board to take action against them.
The Court observed that "11. The right to a clean and healthy environment is an inseparable part of the Right to Life guaranteed by Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Courts have repeatedly reminded that the State has a duty to protect the environment and thereby to ensure the well-being of all the citizens. Therefore, the time is ripe to implement & protect the Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity."
The Court had directed: "13. Let an affidavit be filed by the next date by a responsible officer of State collecting data from each District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Level Monitoring Committee of all the districts, as to what action has been taken in respect of those 3450 Health Care Facilities for non-compliance of the directions of the State Board, so also the provisions of the 2016 Rules and the 1986 Act. The actions taken in consonance with the provisions under Section 5 and 15 of 1986 Act against such Health Care Facilities shall be clearly mentioned in the affidavit."
In its order dated February 25, 2026, the Court had passed a 18-page long order, wherein, it noted that in view of Rule 9 of Rules,Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, the Member Secretary, BSPCB is the prescribed authority for implementation of the provisions of the Rules. The Court had directed the Member Secretary, BSPCB to file an affidavit as to what steps have been taken by the Board for implementation of the provisions of Rules, 2016. Its order reads: "All the steps should be highlighted in detail with documentary proof."
The Court's order dated May 2, 205 stated that The affidavit filed by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board indicated that the gap analysis of the bio-medical waste which is being generated and the bio-medical waste being treated, has been addressed, and based on the gap between the generation and treatment of bio-medical waste, it has been assessed that 06 additional CBWTFs in the entire State of Bihar would be required. One of such units would be required at Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur, Sasaram, Gopalganj, Purnia and Madhubani.
Earlier, the Court's order dated February 28, 2025 had recorded that the affidavit filed on behalf of Central Pollution Control Board, the Respondent No. 18 which stated that as per Rule 9 of the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 (BMWM Rules, 2016), the State Pollution Control Boards, in respect of States and Pollution Control Committees in respect of Union Territories, are the authorities for overall enforcement and implementation of BMWM Rules, 2016. According to the Rules, bio-medical waste is required to be segregated as per the colour tag, viz, yellow, red, white and blue as defined under Schedule-I of the said Rule. The methods for treatment and disposal of bio-medical waste also have been laid down in the BMWM Rules, 2016. The affidavit filed by the Bihar Pollution Control Board did not indicate the steps taken for the effective management of bio-medical waste. The Court had directed the Bihar State Pollution Control Board to file an affidavit delineating the number of facilities available in the State of Bihar with special reference to the availability of such facility in the City of Patna and the steps taken for segregation, collection and disposal of bio-medical waste.
Earlier, in Mahesh Dubey vs. Chattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors., Original Application No.507 of 2014, the National Green Tribunal (NGT)'s Principal Bench of Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson), Justice Raghuvendra S. Rathore (Judicial Member), Bikram Singh Sajwan (Expert Member) and Ranjan Chatterjee (Expert Member) had pronounced its judgment dated December 15, 2016, wherein, it had passed directions contained in para 40 of its order, directing "I. That in the State of Chattisgarh a State Level Committee be constituted under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Secretary Medical Health and all the Divisional Commissioners. Member Secretary, CPCB, Director General, Medical and Health, State of Chattisgarh shall be the Nodal Officer. II. The said Committee shall immediately hold its meeting and thereafter from time to time but not beyond the period of two months. III. The Committee shall immediately prepare a complete and comprehensive inventory of all the HCFs, as defined under Rules of 2016 and thereafter prepare the action plan regarding proper and effective implementation of the provisions of Bio-Medical Management Rules, 2016 IV. The said Committee shall send its report, soon after preparing the action plan for implementation of the Rules to the Tribunal. Thereafter, the State Level Committee shall monitor the implementation of the Bio-Medical Management Rules, 2016 by District Level Committees and send its report in three months to this Tribunal. As soon as the Report is received, the registry shall place it before the Tribunal. V. The State Government of Chattisgarh shall constitute a committee at every district level who shall be responsible for implementing the action plan prepared by the State Level Committee and for effective implementation of Bio-Medical Management Rules, 2016. VI. The District Level Committee shall consist of the District Magistrate as its Chairman and the Chief Medical Officer, Regional Officer, CEBCP and Superintendent of Police of the district to implement the provisions of Bio-Medical Management Rules, 2016 effectively and immediately. The execution/implementation of the relevant law shall be personal responsibility of every member of District Committee. The Chief Medical Officer of the district shall be the Nodal Officer."
The applicant before the NGT had raised the issue of mismanagement of biomedical waste in Chhattisgarh. The applicant prayed for issuing direction to the State Government and other authorities to ensure proper and effective compliance of the BMW Rules. The applicant had alleged that there is lack of implementation of BMW Rules as SPCB had given notices to near about 18 hospitals (both public and private) who were not complying with the BMW Rules. The notices were given out as neither these healthcare institutions were not segregating biomedical wastes, nor they were sending the biomedical wastes to the treatment facility. The discarded biomedical wastes were allegedly mixed with other waste and were scattered in public places. The applicant had alleged that the authorities although aware of the matter, are negligent and casual in handling the issue.
Patna High Court's 3-page long order dated August 3, 2018 had recorded that the counsel appearing for the Bihar State Pollution Control Board had drawn its attention towards the NGT's judgement and had submitted why similar directions be not issued with regard to applicability of the provision in the State of Bihar also and why appropriate committees as indicated in the order passed by the NGT were not constituted and, if constituted, why they were not made effectively functional.
No comments:
Post a Comment