The Court:- Heard Sri Sandeep Dixit for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State, Sri Gaus Beg for the Central Pollution Control Board as well as Union of India, Sri A.K.Verma for the U.P. Pollution Board and Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan for the Lucknow Nagar Nigam. 1. The petitioner is a firm known as M/s Synergy Waste Management Private Limited, which is engaged in management of hospital waste by installing its systems/plants in different districts. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the tender notice along with its condition floated by Lucknow Nagar Nigam, the opposite party No.7. The said tender notice has been floated by Lucknow Nagar Nigam for setting up of operation, management and maintenance of Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF) with Private Public Partnership basis. This has to be done in accordance with Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 as amened in the year 2000 and 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "1998 Rules") and other guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board and Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board. 2. The subject being a little technical it will be better if we understand the meaning of the technical terms used very frequently in the writ petition. 3. The Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF) is a set up where biomedical waste as generate from number of health care units is imparted necessary treatment to reduce the adverse effects that this waste may pose. The treated waste may finally be sent for disposal in a landfill or for recycling purposes. Installation of individual treatment facilities by small health care units requires comparatively high capital investment. In addition, it requires separate manpower and infrastructure development for proper operation and maintenance of treatment systems. The concept of CBWTF not only addresses such problems but also prevents proliferation of treatment equipment in a city. In turn, it reduces the monitoring pressure on regulatory agencies. By running the treatment equipment at CBWTF to its full capacity, the cost of treatment of per kilogram gets significantly reduced. Its considerable advantages have made CBWTF popular and proved concept in many developed countries. 4. CBWTF as an option has also been legally introduced in India. The Biomedical Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998, gives an option to the biomedical waste generator that such waste can also be treated at the common biomedical waste treatment facility. Its considerable advantages have made CBWTF popular and proved concept in many developed countries. 4. CBWTF as an option has also been legally introduced in India. The Biomedical Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998, gives an option to the biomedical waste generator that such waste can also be treated at the common biomedical waste treatment facility. The Second Amendment of the Rules, in June, 2000, further eased the bottleneck in upbringing the CBWTF by making Local Authority responsible for providing suitable site within its jurisdiction. The concept of CBWTF is also being widely accepted in India among the health care units, medical associations and entrepreneurs. 5. As mentioned above, the Central Government, Ministry of Environment and Forests vide its notification of 20th July, 1998 has notified rules for management and handling of biomedical waste. Under these rules, the Government of every State has been directed to establish a "Prescribed Authority" which has been defined under the Rules, and so far as the State of U.P. is concerned, the said "Prescribed Authority" is U.P. Pollution Control Board, which has the power of authorisation as well as its cancellation. 6. A few definitions as given in 1998 Rules may also be necessary for proper adjudication of this matter, which are quoted below:- Rule-3 (3) of the 1998 Rules- 'Authorization' - means permission granted by the Prescribed Authority for the generation, collection, reception, storage, transportation, treatment, disposal and/or any other form of handling of bio-medical waste in accordance with these rules and any guidelines issued by the Central Government. Rule-3 (4) of the 1998 Rules- 'Authorized Person'- means an occupies or operator authorized by the prescribed authority to generate, collect, receive, store, transport, treat, dispose, and/or handle bio-medical waste in accordance with these rules and any guidelines issued by the Central Government. Rule-3(7) of the 1998 Rules- 'Bio-medical Treatment Facility"- means any facility wherein treatment, disposal of bio-medical waste or process incidental to such treatment or disposal is carried out; Rule-3 (8) of the 1998 Rules 'Occupier'- in relation to any institution generating bio-medical waste, which includes a hospital, nursing home, clinic, dispensary, veterinary institution, animal house, pathological laboratory, blood bank by whatever name called, means a person who has control over that institution and/or its premises; Rule-7 of the 1998 Rules- 'Prescribed Authority'- 1. (1)(Save as otherwise provided, the prescribed authority for enforcement) of the provisions of these rules shall be the State Pollution Control Boards in respect of States and the Pollution Control Committees in respect of the Union territories and all pending cases which a prescribed authority appointed earlier shall stand transferred to the concerned State Pollution Control Board, or as the case may be, the Pollution Control Committees.) 2. The Prescribed Authority for the State or Union Territory shall be appointed within one month of the coming into force of these rules. 3. The Prescribed Authority shall function under the supervision and control of the respective Government of the State or Union Territory. 4. The prescribed authority shall no receipt of Form 1 makes such enquiry as it deems fit and if it is satisfied that the applicant possesses the necessary capacity to handle bio-medical waste in accordance with these rules, grant or renew an authorisation as the case may be. 5. An authorisation shall be granted for a period of three years, including an initial trial period of one year from the date of issue. Thereafter, an application shall be made by the occupies/operator for renewal. All such subsequent authorisation shall be for a period of three years. A provisional authorisation will be granted for the trial period, to enable the occupies/operator to demonstrate the capacity of the facility.' 7. The case of the petitioner is that Uttar Pradesh Health Systems Development Project (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P.H.S.D.P.') is running a project in the State of U. P. on basis of an 'Agreement' dated 19.5.2000 entered into between International Development Association (for easy understanding may be referred to as 'World Bank') and the State of U. P. It has been averred that State of U. P. made a request to the 'World Bank' to run a programme to improve the health system in the State. In turn, the World Bank agreed to make available in India the required amount on the terms and conditions set forth in the 'Development Credit Agreement'. An undertaking has been given by the State of U. P. to undertake such obligations towards the 'World Bank' as set forth in the project agreement. 8. 'U.P.H.S.D.P.' after agreement with the 'World Bank' and the funds provided there from undertook the work of bio medical waste disposal. An undertaking has been given by the State of U. P. to undertake such obligations towards the 'World Bank' as set forth in the project agreement. 8. 'U.P.H.S.D.P.' after agreement with the 'World Bank' and the funds provided there from undertook the work of bio medical waste disposal. For this purpose, a "National Competitive Bidding for Selection of Agency for Performing Hospital Waste Management Activity on Turn-Key Basis' was undertaken and invitation was given for the bidding. 9. According to the petitioner, the 'U.P.H.S.D.P.' vide its notification of award dated 15th June, 2006 selected the petitioner as the 'Service Provider' for the two districts of Meerut and Lucknow. We are here mainly concerned with the District Lucknow only, which is subject matter of this writ petition. A contract on 14.8.2006 was also signed between the petitioner and the 'U.P.H.S.D.P.'. The petitioner was, thus, entitled to carry out the bio-medical waste disposal through out the District-Lucknow in a radius of 150 Kilometers. 10. The petitioner has asserted that the Director General, Medical Health Services, U.P. vide his letter dated 17.8.2007 written to all the Chief Medical Officers and Medical Superintendents of the State of U.P. that the 'Service Providers' have been selected by the 'U.P.H.S.D.P.', thus, the hospital waste be managed through these 'Service Providers' only. Further, the Project Director of 'U.P.H.S.D.P.' vide his letter dated 7.9.2006 had also written to all the Heads of District Hospitals and Primary Health Centers that the 'Service Providers' have been selected for the purpose of bio-medical waste disposal. This letter was again sent on 31.3.2009 written by the Joint Director of 'U.P.H.S.D.P.' as a reminder to all the District Hospitals and the Primary Health Centers. Again a similar letter to this effect was written by the Director General, Medical Health Services on 5.6.2009 to all the Chief Medical Officers and Chief Medical Superintendents. The petitioner has annexed the copies of such letters. 11. The case of the petitioner is that under Rule-14 of the 'Rules of 1998' and the guidelines issued for Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facilities under Clause 1(2), it was the duty of the Lucknow Municipal Corporation to provide suitable land to the petitioner to install the plant for disposal of bio medical waste. 11. The case of the petitioner is that under Rule-14 of the 'Rules of 1998' and the guidelines issued for Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facilities under Clause 1(2), it was the duty of the Lucknow Municipal Corporation to provide suitable land to the petitioner to install the plant for disposal of bio medical waste. The petitioner further asserts that the permission as required under the 'Rules of 1998' was given by the U.P. Pollution Control Board vide their letter dated 1.1.2009 and 'No Objection Certificate' by the U.P. Pollution Control Board was given on 18.9.2008 to the petitioner. The authorization for operating facility, collection, reception, storage, treatment, transfer and disposal of bio-medical waste was given to the petitioner on 9.1.2009. 12. The petitioner further alleges that since 'Lucknow Municipal Corporation' did not provide any suitable land to the petitioner-firm hence the petitioner had to install its plant at Village Mohammadpur, District Barabanki. It is disposing the bio-medical waste from the month of January, 2006 after installing the plant in District Barabanki and is operating as 'Service Provider' in the Districts of Lucknow Hardoi, Rai Bareillly, Sitapur and Barabanki. 13. The petitioner says that on one hand Lucknow Municipal Corporation did not provide land to the petitioner on the other hand it issued a tender notice in the month of September, 2009, for setting up operation, management and maintenance of Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF) on Private-Public-Partnership basis. The last date for submission of technical bids was 18th September, 2009 and it was to be opened at 16.00 hours on the same day in the presence of all the bidders. Vide Corrigendum the said date was extended as 25th September, 2009. The tender contained a Memorandum of Work in brief. The caption given before the terms and conditions is being quoted hereinbelow: "Municipal Corporation, Lucknow a Local Authority as per Section 4 of U. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (which shall include any substitute Local Authority or appointed administrator as per any enactment of Lawful Authority). Hereinafter called the Municipal Corporation through its Nagar Ayukta, Lucknow invites bids from the prospective developers/promoters to establish Centralized Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility on Build-Own Operate and Transfer basis for the treatment of infectious Biomedical wastes from the city of Lucknow & its periphery on the following terms and conditions." 14. The petitioner is offended by issuance of the memorandum of working. The petitioner is offended by issuance of the memorandum of working. He gave a legal notice to the Lucknow Municipal Corporation on 25.9.2009 through its counsel Sri Amit Arora calling upon the Lucknow Municipal Corporation not to open the tenders or proceed with the formalities in respect thereto to establish a Centralized Bio Medical Waste Facility as the petitioner was the only authorized firm for doing the same. This notice was addressed to the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow. Similar notice was served on the Mayor also. 15. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. Nothing substantial has been added by this supplementary affidavit except that the details of hospitals and beds have been provided through the same and an attempt has been made to prove that the total work allocated to the petitioner still does not exceed 10,000 beds hence the petitioner is well equipped to cater to the further requirements of the District Lucknow. There is no further need for Lucknow Municipal Corporation to float another tender. 16. Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel has argued on behalf of Lucknow Municipal Corporation that the petition is absolutely misconceived and should be dismissed. He has informed the Court that U.P. Pollution Control Board vide its letter No.F/50736/C-5/B.M.W.-47/9 dated 11.6.2009 has issued the required authorization for operating facility (for Collection, Reception, Storage, Treatment, Transport Bold and Disposal of Bio-Medical Waste) under the provisions of the Rules of 1998 amended in 2000 to the Lucknow Nagar Nigam itself. This application was moved by Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Lucknow Municipal Corporation on 1st April, 2009 and the authorization was granted on 11.6.2009. It has been mentioned in this letter that the bio-medical waste shall be collected, transported from within the district Lucknow at approved rates by the Prescribed Authority but not beyond the radius of 150 kilometers within such jurisdiction. Besides this, there are about 20 conditions attached to this authorization letter. 17. The learned counsel for the Lucknow Municipal Corporation has further argued that the guidelines for common bio-medical waste treatment facility issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in August, 2003 are not mandatory or legally binding in any manner but are simply general guidelines for setting operation and maintenance of common bio-medical waste treatment facility. Only the the Bio-Medical Rules 1998 as amended in 2000 and 2003 provide for statutory regulation for the same. Only the the Bio-Medical Rules 1998 as amended in 2000 and 2003 provide for statutory regulation for the same. Under these rules, U.P. Pollution Control Board as the Prescribed Authority has the exclusive rights for authorization of the common biomedical waste treatment facility. The amended Rules, 2000 did not carry any legal or mandatory binding as regards : (i) No. of beds, (ii) Distance for setting up of another common bio-medical waste treatment facility. 18. He has further argued that the petitioner never made any demand of land for setting up of common bio-medical waste treatment facility instead he has only put in a letter for taking over the existing facility at Lucknow Municipal Corporation. Further, it is the case of the Lucknow Municipal Corporation that the petitioner has been selected and has entered into an agreement with 'U.P.H.S.D.P'. as a Service Provider, only by State Health Department for which he has obtained 'No Objection Certificate/Authorization' of the U.P. Pollution Control Board i.e the Prescribed Authority. Thus they are service providers only for Government Hospitals. It has been vehemently denied by the learned counsel for the Lucknow Municipal Corporation that the petitioner is the only service provider and authorized by the Prescribed Authority, rather the Lucknow Municipal Corporation is equally competent having been also authorized by the Prescribed Authority on 11.6.2009. 19. So far the bids in pursuance of the tender notice is concerned, the petitioner only chose to sent a notice but never participated in the tender. The petitioner could have also applied through proper tender before the Lucknow Municipal Corporation. The notice was widely published in the newspaper. 20. Further the Lucknow Municipal Corporation has received bids on Public-Private-Partnership basis from experienced and eligible bidders having due authorization/no objection certificate of providing similar facilities elsewhere. It has been further argued that the petitioner has been awarded the work by the 'U.P.H.S.D.P.' which is in no way any entity recognized/authorized by the Bio-Medical Rules. The authorization of U.P. Pollution Control Board has been awarded to the petitioner as well as to the respondent-Lucknow Municipal Corporation. 21. Learned counsel for the Lucknow Municipal Corporation has further demolished the arguments of the petitioner by asserting that the petitioner should have participated in the bidding under the tender notice issued by the Lucknow Municipal Corporation. Petitioner has been awarded the work by 'U.P.H.S.D.P.' by the same process. 21. Learned counsel for the Lucknow Municipal Corporation has further demolished the arguments of the petitioner by asserting that the petitioner should have participated in the bidding under the tender notice issued by the Lucknow Municipal Corporation. Petitioner has been awarded the work by 'U.P.H.S.D.P.' by the same process. The insistence of the petitioner that they should remain the only and exclusive service provider in the whole region in Lucknow is untenable. 22. Lastly, counsel for the Nagar Nigam has argued that the petitioner is challenging this tender notice only to maintain monopoly in this field. He does want to usurp the work of the Lucknow Municipal Corporation but without fair process of bidding and competition. The Lucknow Municipal Corporation is well within its rights to float tenders as they are also properly authorized under the rules by the competent Prescribed Authority. 23. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and the material on record. There are certain facts which are undisputed. There is no doubt that the petitioner has been granted authorization by the Prescribed Authority for the disposal of the Bio Medical Waste under the Rules. Further, there is no doubt that an agreement has been entered into by the petitioner and the 'U.P.H.S.D.P.' It is also beyond doubt that the Director General, Medical Service as well as Project Director, 'U.P.H.S.D.P.' have written letters to the District Hospitals, Primary Health Centres, Chief Medical Officers and the Medical Superintendents for getting the waste treatments done by the petitioner's firm. 24. On the other hand, the opposite parties, namely, the 'Lucknow Municipal Corporation' has also demonstrated and shown to the Court, authorization issued in their favour by the same 'Prescribed Authority' dated 11.6.2009 under the 1998 Rules as amended in 2000. No specific and exclusive rights can be granted under the rules of 1998 as amended by notification in the year 2000. The 'Prescribed Authority' has not been debarred from issuing more than one authorization. The Prescribed Authority by issuing authorization to the petitioner as well as Lucknow Municipal Corporation simultaneously goes to show that more than one agency can be granted authorization and nobody can be forced to chose a particular service provider. The 'Prescribed Authority' has not been debarred from issuing more than one authorization. The Prescribed Authority by issuing authorization to the petitioner as well as Lucknow Municipal Corporation simultaneously goes to show that more than one agency can be granted authorization and nobody can be forced to chose a particular service provider. In such a circumstance, since the Lucknow Municipal Corporation has been provided valid authorization under the valid authorization under the 'Rules', from the Prescribed Authority, their right to issue tender notice for inviting bids for the purpose can not be denied. The petitioners are free to exercise their rights as per their authorization within 150 kilometers radius to the extent of 10000 beds. It has to be kept in mind that they have entered into an agreement with 'U.P.H.S.D.P.' which is binding inter se only. The contract is between M/s. Synergy Waste Management Private Limited and the 'U.P.H.S.D.P.'. This agreement can not be enforced against the Lucknow Municipal Corporation nor can it be used as a prohibition against any agency who itself has been authorized under the 1998 Rules by the Prescribed Authority. 25. In the present case, the Lucknow Municipal Corporation has been given authorization by the U.P. Pollution Control Board on 11.6.2009 and they are well within their rights to cater to the needs of the hospitals, which solicit its services. One more point in this regard to be noticed is that private hospitals are not covered by the 'U.P.H.S.D.P.'. The Director General, Medical Service or the Project Director of 'U.P.H.S.D.P.' has no power to issue directions to the private hospitals to chose their service provider. Under the circumstances, this field of private hospital is still available and open for the Lucknow Municipal Corporation. They have every right after getting authorization to contact the private hospitals if they so chose. It appears that petitioner is trying to create monopoly in this field by trying to stop the Lucknow Municipal Corporation from operating despite the authorization under the Rules. 26. We, therefore, find that the petition is misconceived and devoid of merit. Petitioners do not have any exclusive and legal right to stop the Municipal Corporation, Lucknow, which is equally authorized under the Rules of 1998, for inviting the bids to chose service providers. 27. The Petition, thus, lacks merit and is dismissed. The interim order granted earlier shall also stand vacated. 28. Petitioners do not have any exclusive and legal right to stop the Municipal Corporation, Lucknow, which is equally authorized under the Rules of 1998, for inviting the bids to chose service providers. 27. The Petition, thus, lacks merit and is dismissed. The interim order granted earlier shall also stand vacated. 28. However, no order is passed as to costs.