APHC010193562024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3524] THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 9611/2024 Between: M/s. Trimax Energy And Enviro Care Systems ...PETITIONER AND The Union of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALLEMU VIJAYA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P VENKAIAH NAIDU 2. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 3. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 4. GP FOR FORESTS 5. YELISETTI SOMARAJU STANDING COUNSEL APPCB The Court made the following: ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) On 09.04.2025, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P.No.11929 & 10643 of 2024 raised preliminary objection regarding entertainability of writ petition on the ground that against the appellate order passed under Rule 16 of Bio- Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, the petitioners have 2 remedy to approach NGT under Section 14 of National Green Tribunal, Act, 2010. 2. In W.P.No.9611 of 2024, Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents also raised the preliminary objection regarding entertainability of the writ petition but on different ground. He submits that against the order passed under Rule 16, remedy is under Section 5(a) of Environment Protection Act R/w.16(g) of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 before the NGT. 3. In reply thereto learned counsel for thepetitioner in W.P.No.9611 of 2024 after arguing at some length prays for tomorrow. 4. At his request, post on 10.04.2025.” 2. Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 reiterates his preliminary objection that the petitioner of this writ petition has alternative remedy of appeal under Section 16(g) of the National Green Tribunal Act. He also places reliance on the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 3246, and contends that in the said case it was held in para No.16 as under:- “……16.Petitioner has not availed the aforesaid statutory remedy before the appellate forum available under different statutory provisions. This Court is of the considered view that several disputed questions of fact are involved in the instant petitions which ought not to be gone into while exercising writ jurisdiction and therefore, this Court declines interference on merits…..” 3. Sri Sagarika Koneru, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner,prays to withdraw the writ petition so as to enable the petitioner to approach the NGT to take recourse to the appellate remedy. 3 4. Recording the aforesaid submissions, but without observing whether the order impugned herein is appealable or not before the NGT under Section 16 (g), the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the writ petition. 5. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to the appellate remedy if soopen under Law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. ___________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J GVK 4 124 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.9611 of 2024 Dt. 10.04.2025 GVK