Taking note of the submissions of the petitioner counsel, the Court issued directed the respondent authorities to file counter.
Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition complaining of inaction of authorities in permitting a public hearing for a proposed common bio-medical waste treatment facility in Hanamkonda district. The panel of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao was hearing a writ petition filed by Clean Harbors India, questioning the failure of the Telangana Pollution Control Board and other authorities to act on its application submitted in March 2026, seeking permission to conduct a public hearing as part of the environmental clearance process. The petitioner contended that despite submitting applications and representations in March 2026, the authorities failed to act on the request to initiate the public consultation process. It was argued that such inaction was illegal and contrary to the applicable guidelines governing biomedical waste management facilities, besides violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the project had received in-principle approval and terms of reference from the competent authorities in 2022, and the denial of permission to proceed with the public hearing was obstructing the environmental clearance process. Taking note of the submissions of the petitioner counsel, the Court issued directed the respondent authorities to file counter.
Singareni tender under challenge
Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition challenging a tender of the Singareni Collieries for forestry works alleging that tender notification dilutes the eligibility criteria. The petitioner, Singareni Forestry Development Contractors Association, questioned the tender notification, alleging that notification dispensed with essential technical eligibility requirements such as prior experience, qualified personnel, and execution of similar works, and instead emphasised only financial criteria. It was argued that earlier tenders mandated experience in nursery and forestry works in coal mine areas since any faulty work in afforestation will result in dust and pollution. The petitioner relied on the Forestry Manual, 2015 to contend that any deviation from prescribed eligibility conditions requires approval of the department of forestry, which in the present case was absent. The petitioner further contended that removal of technical qualifications from the tender conditions caused prejudice to experienced contractors. The petitioner sought an interim direction to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the tender process.
