Plea Seeks Permit for Public Hearing

Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition complaining about the authorities’ inaction on allowing public hearing for the proposed joint bio-medical waste treatment plant in Hanamkonda district. The bench, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice BR 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 the application submitted in March 2026 and seeking permission to hold a public hearing as part of the environmental clearance process. The petitioner alleged that despite submitting an application and representation in March 2026, the authorities did not comply with his request to initiate the public consultation process. It was argued that such inaction was illegal and contrary to applicable rules regulating biomedical waste management facilities, and also violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the project received in-principle approval and terms of reference from the competent authorities in 2022 and that the refusal of permission to proceed with the public hearing impeded the environmental cleanup process. Taking into account the arguments of the petitioner’s lawyer, the Court directed them to file a lawsuit against the respondent authorities.

Singari tender is in trouble

Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition challenging the forestry works tender of Singari Colliery, alleging that the tender notification diluted the eligibility criteria. The petitioner, Singareni Forestry Development Contractors Association, questioned the tender notification, claiming that the tender notification dispensed with basic technical suitability requirements such as previous experience, qualified personnel and execution of similar works and instead emphasized only financial criteria. In previous tenders, it was claimed that experience in nursery and forestry works in coal mine areas was mandatory, and that incorrect work in afforestation would cause dust and pollution. The petitioner relied on the Forestry Guidelines, 2015 to argue that any deviation from the prescribed eligibility conditions requires the approval of the forest department, which was not available in the present case. The petitioner also argued that the exclusion of technical qualifications from tender conditions was detrimental to experienced contractors. The petitioner sought an interim order restraining the respondents from proceeding with the tender process.