AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.
The petitioner-company is before this Court assailing the communication dated 02.06.2014 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner is seeking for issue of writ of mandamus to direct respondent No. 5 to accept the tender document for reception of sludge/waste oil/bilge oily water from the ships as per the tender notification at Annexure-B.
The facts in brief are that respondent No. 5 issued a tender notification as at Annexure-B for the scope of work as indicated therein. The work involves reception of sludge/waste oil/bilge oily water at New Mangaluru Port. The conditions for submission of the tenders is also indicated therein. One of the conditions at 2.1(h) is for submission of copy of the Consent Certificates issued by respondent No. 4 - Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. The petitioner contends that they possess certificate from the Central Pollution Control Board and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. It is the case of the petitioners that the Clearance Certificate from respondent No. 4-Karnataka State Pollution Control Board is not necessary for recycling of the sludge/waste oil etc. Since respondent No. 5 had insisted on the condition of ''no objection certificate'' from respondent No. 4, the petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the same.
The respondents through their objection statement have sought to sustain their action. It is contended that as provided under Rule 5(1) and Rule 20(3) of the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, (''Rules 2008'' for short) such ''no objection certificate'' is required to be obtained. Respondent No. 4 contends that such certificate is to be possessed by every person who is engaged in generation, processing, treatment, package, storage etc, as provided under Rule 5(1) of Rules 2008. It is their contention that even if the petitioners are engaged in recycling, since it is a part of processing such certificate is to be obtained. Respondent No. 5 has contended that as required under the Rules 2008, the indication has been made in the tender notification and as such, ''no objection certificate'' is required to be produced by the petitioners.
The fact that Rule 20(3) of Rules 2008 contemplates such ''no objection certificate'' from the State Pollution Control Board of both States cannot be in dispute. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has strongly placed reliance on the communication dated 21.06.2013 at Annexure-H wherein the Central Pollution Control Board while addressing letter to the addressee mentioned therein has stated that though such ''no objection certificate'' is required from the Pollution Control Board of both the States, a clarification is issued stating that such ''no objection certificate'' is required only for final disposal and not for recycling as explained in the letter provided by MoEF. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the same and contended that the petitioners are engaged in recycling and therefore the certificate is not required, the said clarification issued by the Central Pollution Control Board is not shown to be based on the Rules concerned.
A perusal of Rule 20(3) of Rules 2008 does not indicate such clarification except providing for obtaining ''no objection certificate'' from the State Pollution Control Board of both the States. If that be the position, in the instant case, when the tender called is for reception of sludge/waste oil/bilge oily water at New Mangaluru Port, respondent No. 5 was justified in incorporating the condition in the tender documents. The petitioners would have to therefore obtain such ''no objection certificate'' from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and submit their bid.
Though the above position is presently decided by this Court, it is noticed that the last date for submission of tenders indicated in Annexure-B is dated 20.01.2015 and the date for opening is 20.01.2015, which has since elapsed. However, prior to the last date of submission, the petitioners have approached this Court with the grievance, by filing the petition on 16.01.2015. This Court by the order dated 19.01.2015 had granted interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-B.
If that be the position, the last date for submission and the date for opening the tenders had not come into effect in view of the interim order granted by this Court. Since the petitioners were before this Court assailing the condition and presently, it has been clarified that the petitioners would have to obtain the ''no objection certificate'' from respondent No. 4, the process relating to issuance of ''no objection certificate'' by respondent No. 4 also would have to be regulated and opportunity should be granted to the petitioners to submit their bid in response to the tender notification.
In that regard, a perusal of Annexure-G to the petition would disclose that the petitioner have made an application for ''no objection certificate'' to respondent No. 4 on 11.09.2014. Respondent No. 4 would take note of the same and dispose of the application.
To enable the same, the petitioner shall file one more copy of the said application with respondent No. 4 within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No. 4 shall consider and dispose of the application within two weeks thereafter. The petitioners shall submit their bid to respondent No. 5 along with certificate if any, issued within five days from the date on which the certificate is issued by respondent No. 4. On such submission of the bid by the petitioner, respondent No. 5 shall issue a Corrigendum indicating the date and time for opening of the technical bid and proceed further in accordance with law.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A. No. II/2015 also stands disposed of.