• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

Our Legal Correspondent

CHENNAI, June 30

SUBMISSION of tenders for bidding in auction for hazardous goods without production of a `no objection' certificate from the State Pollution Control Board could not be held to be invalid, the Madras High Court has said.

As the Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989 specifically said, even if the rules were applicable, the certificate from the pollution control authorities had to be obtained only if the tender was accepted, and there was no compulsion on the tenderer to produce such a certificate even to participate in the tender.

Mr Justice K. Govindarajan, who was hearing two writ petitions by Coimbatore and Karaikudi based industrial units challenging the submission of tenders by an Indore based industry, agreed with the counsel for the first respondent (MSTC Ltd, Chennai) that the Hazardous Wastes Rules had no application to the present case as the product dealt with (unserviceable lead acid batteries & waste) in this case could not be construed as `hazardous waste' and so the requirement contemplated under the said rules need not be insisted upon.

The Judge held that it was clear that the petitioners had produced necessary registration certificates as required under clause 13 of the general conditions of tender. With respect to other requirements under law, the fourth respondent (the successful bidder in the tender) had to comply with whenever it was required. When such a procedure was contemplated, it could not be said that the fourth respondent's tenders should not have been considered without the `no objection' certificate from the concerned State Pollution Control Board. "Hence, I do not find any reason to accept the case of the petitioners, and the writ petitions were dismissed''.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Chennai (second respondent), through MSTC Ltd, Chennai (first respondent) called for tender for disposal of unserviceable lead acid batteries and waste. The petitioners (KMR Metal Mart, Coimbatore and Emgee Foundry, Karaikudi), and the fourth respondent, Ganapathi Metals, Indore submitted their tenders. The fourth respondent was declared as successful bidder. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.

On behalf of KMR Metal Mart, it was submitted that the fourth respondent had submitted two tenders contrary to the conditions, and so, the first respondent should have rejected the tenders. Also, the fourth respondent had not produced the `no objection' certificate from the Pollution Control Board of the respective States through which the fourth respondent had to transport the auctioned goods.

The counsel for the first respondent contended that the HW Rules were not applicable to the present case, and only the Batteries (Management & Handling) Rules, 2001 would apply. Once separate rules with respect to batteries had been stipulated, the general rule, viz HW Rules, could not be relied on with respect to the procedures to be followed. On behalf of the fourth respondent, it was argued that even if the HW rules were applicable, the requisite certificate from the pollution control authorities in each State had to be obtained only if the tender was accepted, and there was no compulsion on the fourth respondent to produce such a certificate even to participate in the tender, which was not a pre-condition for him to submit his tender, or for the first respondent to consider the fourth respondent's tender.

On the question whether the same party could submit two tenders, the Judge held that there was no prohibition to submit two tenders. Similarly, in regard to the stipulation that anybody wanting to submit a tender should also produce a `no objection' certificate from the pollution control authorities, the Judge said that he was not able to accept the said submission.

According to the rule, any person who intended to be an operator for collection, reception, treatment, transport, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes should make an application to the pollution control board. The word `intends' mentioned in the rule had to be construed as the effective intention. So, merely because he was participating in the tender, it was not necessary for him to get a `no objection' certificate by spending money. The intention of the rule was to prevent pollution at the time of the process mentioned in the rules. Hence, it could not be said that merely on the basis of an intention, the said `no objection' certificate had to be obtained. The writ petitions were dismissed.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
DK receives record rainfall

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line