Maltose Agri Products Private Limited vs The Commissioner, Office of The Commissioner

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Maltose Agri Products Private Limited, on the alleged cause of action arising to it on account of alleged oral directions of 3rd respondent-Chief Health Officer, BBMP, Bangalore East, to the hotels situated in Yelahanka to Shoolay Circle, Bangalore East Zone, to whom under the authorisation given by the respondent-BBMP, the petitioner had entered into agreements with various hotels of that area to collect their organic waste under the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000.

The petitioner was given such authorisation vide Annexure-G, dated 10-3-2014 and relevant extract which is quoted below for ready reference:

"The proposal submitted by you seeking permission to collect waste from hotels of Yelahanka to Soole Circle and Bangalore East Zone, to process segregated hotel waste using 20 MTD capacity anaerobic digester and Bio-gas purification system at Huskur Village, Doddaballapura Taluk has been examined.

In this regard, a decision has been taken by BBMP expert committee (constituted to supervise SWM activities) to consider your proposal. The BBMP is here by authorise your firm to collect waste from hotels in Yelahanka and Dasarahalli Zones, by making your own arrangement to collect waste, in compliance with MSW Rules, 2000 while transporting waste without causing nuisance to public. The list of the hotels and boundaries of the zone will be provided by Joint Commissioner, Yelahanka and Dasarahalli Zones.

As you are aware that M/s. Bruhat Bangalore Hotels Association (BBHA), entered into an agreement with M/s. Noble Exchange Private Limited to dispose the organic waste generated from the bulk waste generators, in the similar manner. You are hereby informed to contact, Chief Secretary, BBHA regarding cost to collect the waste and make an agreement with BBHA, with an intimation to BBMP. You are also authorised to directly contact the hoteliers in the above zones for waste on similar terms that of M/s. Noble Exchange Private Limited and process the same. The authorisation from Karnataka State Pollution Control Board shall be obtained for this work.

For any clarification regarding this proposal you may contact Joint Commissioner (Health and SWM) and respective Zonal Commissioners directly.

Sd/-

Commissioner

Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike"

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an agreement was accordingly entered into on 16-5-2014 by the petitioner with M/s. Bruhat Bengaluru Hotels Association (''BBHA'' for short) and thereafter in accordance with the rates fixed by the BBHA, Association of Member Hotels, the separate agreements were entered into by the petitioner with individual hotels and some agreements have been illustratively produced as per Annexures-L, M, N, O and P before this Court.

The petitioner upon such alleged and unauthorised interference of 3rd respondent-Chief Health Officer is also said to have made a representation to the Special Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru, vide Annexure-S, dated 3-6-2016 and that having remained un-respondent, the petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of present writ petition, which was filed on 13-6-2016, after 10 days of filing such representation.

Paragraph 7 of the writ petition of this writ petition, reads as under:

"7. This being the state of affairs, it appears that at the oral directions of the 3rd respondent herein, the hotels from whom the petitioner is authorised to collect segregated waste were being forced not to deliver the wet waste to the petitioner but to a 3rd party as opposed to the authorisation given to the petitioner under Annexures-G and K. This conduct of the 3rd respondent has resulted in steep shortfall of supply of wet waste to the petitioner as a result of which the petitioner and its employees are deprived of the work and income. The petitioner cannot be denied of the authorisation given to him by the respondents without any reason or without revoking the same by giving notice to the petitioner. Hence, being aggrieved by the issues faced by the petitioner during collection of wet waste due to unauthorised collection by 3rd party agencies, the petitioner submitted a representation on 3-6-2016 to the 1st respondent. In the representation, the petitioner specifically requested the 2nd respondent to intervene in the matter, direct stoppage of collection of segregated hotel waste by unauthorised 3rd party agencies. The representation dated 3-6-2016 bearing Ref. No. 165/16-17 is produced herewith as Annexure-S for the kind perusal of this Hon''ble Court."

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. The reasons are as follows:

(i) The averments at the beginning of paragraph 7 are vague to the core. The stipulation "...... it appears that the at the oral directions of the 3rd respondent herein, the hotels from whom the petitioner is authorised to collect segregated waste were being forced not to deliver the wet waste to the petitioner ...." , do not even give out the clear facts which are required to be established with the relevant evidence. It cannot be appreciated by this Court in the absence of any documentary evidence that the 3rd respondent-Chief Health Officer has interfered with the matter or not, and even if it is assumed for arguments sake that it was so, nothing prevented the petitioner from adducing any corroborative evidence from the Hotels which were in contract with the petitioner for removal of such solid waste and to furnish their affidavits naming the particular oral directions of the Health Officer concerned, who directed them not to make over the solid waste generated in their hotel premises to the petitioner, even though there were agreements entered into by them with the petitioner.

(ii) Such contractual matters between the parties which even if interrupted by a public authority, the claim of the present petitioner before this Court, cannot be adjudicated upon in writ jurisdiction. No arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction or violation of the contracts itself can be presumed at the instance of the petitioner on the basis of aforesaid vague averments. Mere filing of the representation afterwards and awaiting its response, does not empower the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such contractual enforcement can best be made in the Competent Civil Court by availing a remedy of civil suit for damages and not the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(iii) There are no allegations of mala fide against the 3rd respondent nor he has been impleaded by name. If in an official capacity it was available to him to interfere or interrupt the implementation of this private contract between the petitioner and the Hotels or BBHA for that matter, the remedy of the petitioner was obviously in filing a civil suit and not the writ petition before this Court.

(iv) In the absence of any such facts laid and established before this Court in the present writ petition, this Court is not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction in the present case in enforcing contractual rights of the petitioner at this stage.

The writ petition therefore is found to be devoid of merits and is therefore liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.