Telangana High Court
Telangana Hospitals And Nursing Homes … vs The Union Of India on 2 April, 2026
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 28859 OF 2025
Date: -04-2026
Between in WP No. 28859 of 2025
Telangana Hospitals and Nursing Homes
Association and others ...Petitioners
And
Union of India rep. by its Under Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change and others ......Respondents
This Court made the following
ORDER
Heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mrs. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India appearing for respondent No.1. Mr. Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood,
learned counsel for respondent No.4, learned Government Pleader for
2
Environment, Science and Technology for respondent No.2,
Mr. Kondapally Ravikrishnakanth, learned counsel for respondent
No.3 and Mr. Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.5 to 15.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the validity of Guideline No. 14
issued by Respondent No. 3 – Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB) under the “Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste
Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2025”, and the consequential
Circular No. TGPCB/BMW/HO/2025-655 dated 04.06.2025 issued by
Respondent No. 4 – Telangana Pollution Control Board (TGPCB).
3. The petitioners comprise of registered association of
hospitals and its member healthcare facilities functioning in the State
of Telangana, all of whom fall within the definition of “occupiers”
under the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, framed under
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986’).
3
4. The CPCB, in exercise of its statutory powers, issued revised
guidelines dated 12.04.2025 governing Common Bio-Medical Waste
Treatment Facilities (CBMWTFs). Guideline No. 14 thereof provides
for fixation of user charges payable by healthcare facilities,
prescribing a differential methodology, charging non-bedded facilities
on the basis of waste generation, while charging bedded hospitals on a
“per bed per day” basis.
5. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 4 issued the impugned
Circular dated 04.06.2025 fixing user charges in the State of
Telangana by adopting the said differential mechanism, thereby
requiring bedded healthcare facilities to pay charges on a per bed per
day basis, irrespective of actual waste generated, while non-bedded
facilities are charged differently.
6. The petitioners contend that such classification between
bedded and non-bedded healthcare facilities, in the matter of levy of
user charges, is arbitrary, lacks statutory backing, and imposes an
4
unreasonable financial burden, particularly where occupancy rates are
low.
7. Aggrieved by the said guideline and circular, the petitioners
have approached this Court seeking a declaration that the same are
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
along with a consequential direction for uniform charging based on
actual waste generation.
8. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS
i. The impugned Guideline No. 14 issued by Respondent No. 3
and the consequential Circular dated 04.06.2025 issued by
Respondent No. 4 are wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
ii. The petitioners, being “occupiers” under the Bio-Medical
Waste Management Rules, 2016, are statutorily obligated to
ensure safe handling and disposal of bio-medical waste.
However, neither the provisions of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 nor the BMWM Rules, 2016 confer any
5
power upon the respondents to prescribe or enforce a
differential pricing mechanism for collection and disposal of
such waste.
iii. The primary grievance of the petitioners is directed against the
classification introduced under Guideline No. 14, whereby
bedded healthcare facilities are charged on a “per bed per day”
basis, while non-bedded healthcare facilities are charged on the
basis of actual waste generation. According to the petitioners,
such classification is artificial, lacks intelligible differentia, and
bears no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved,
namely safe and efficient disposal of bio-medical waste.
iv. The quantity of bio-medical waste generated by a healthcare
facility is not dependent on the number of beds available, but
on actual usage, patient inflow, and nature of medical
procedures conducted. Consequently, levying charges on a per
bed per day basis, irrespective of actual waste generation,
results in an arbitrary and excessive financial burden on bedded
healthcare facilities, particularly in cases of low occupancy.
6v. There is no functional or operational distinction, insofar as
collection, transportation, and disposal of bio-medical waste are
concerned, between bedded and non-bedded healthcare
facilities. The services rendered by CBMWTF operators remain
identical, and therefore, adopting different yardsticks for
determining charges is discriminatory and unjustified.
vi. The impugned action amounts to hostile discrimination against
bedded healthcare facilities, as they are compelled to pay higher
charges without any corresponding increase in services or
benefits. Such unequal treatment, according to the petitioners,
squarely falls foul of the equality clause under Article 14 of the
Constitution.
vii. The petitioners had submitted representations to Respondent
No. 4 seeking uniform fixation of charges based on actual
weight of bio-medical waste for all categories of healthcare
facilities. However, the said representations were arbitrarily
rejected without assigning any cogent reasons, thereby vitiating
the decision-making process.
7
viii. The impugned guideline and circular, being devoid of statutory
backing and issued without proper application of mind, are
liable to be struck down as unconstitutional, and a direction
ought to be issued to the respondents to adopt a uniform and
rational method of charging based on actual waste generated.
9. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No. 3- (CPCB),
i. The writ petition is misconceived, both on facts and in law, and
is liable to be dismissed in limine.
ii. The CPCB is a statutory authority constituted under the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and is vested with the
power to issue guidelines for effective implementation of the
Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 across the
country. The guidelines issued by the CPCB are binding in
nature and are intended to ensure uniformity, environmental
safety, and scientific handling of bio-medical waste.
iii. the Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and
Disposal Facilities, 2025 have been issued after due
8
consideration of technical, environmental, and operational
factors, and are in furtherance of the statutory scheme under the
1986 Act and the BMWM Rules, 2016. Guideline No. 14,
which deals with the fixation of user charges, is a policy
decision taken to balance the interests of healthcare facilities
and CBMWTF operators, while ensuring sustainability of the
waste management system.
iv. The classification between bedded and non-bedded healthcare
facilities is based on intelligible differentia. Bedded hospitals,
by their very nature, have higher capacity, greater patient
turnover, and generate more complex and hazardous bio-
medical waste, including waste from ICUs, operation theatres,
and inpatient care. Therefore, the adoption of a “per bed per
day” model is a reasonable and practical method to estimate
waste generation and to ensure effective planning and
management.
v. The said classification has a direct nexus with the object sought
to be achieved, namely ensuring safe, continuous, and efficient
9
bio-medical waste management, and therefore satisfies the test
under Article 14 of the Constitution.
vi. Fixation of user charges cannot be confined strictly to actual
weight of waste generated, as such a model would be
impractical, prone to manipulation, and administratively
burdensome. The per bed per day model provides certainty,
predictability, and administrative convenience, which are
essential for maintaining the operational viability of
CBMWTFs.
vii. The impugned guideline does not operate in isolation but forms
part of a comprehensive regulatory framework, wherein factors
such as size of the facility, number of beds, distance from the
CBMWTF, and operational costs are taken into consideration
while determining charge.
viii. The petitioners cannot challenge a policy decision merely on
the ground that an alternative method may be more suitable. In
the absence of manifest arbitrariness or lack of competence, the
scope of judicial review in such matters is limited, and the
10
Court ought not to interfere with expert-driven regulatory
decisions.
10. With the aforesaid contentions, it sought to dismiss the writ
petition.
11. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No. 4- TGPCB
i. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
ii. The impugned Circular dated 04.06.2025 has been issued
strictly in compliance with the Guidelines framed by
Respondent No. 3 – CPCB, and in discharge of the statutory
obligations cast upon the State Pollution Control Board under
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Bio-Medical
Waste Management Rules, 2016.
iii. The CPCB Guidelines, 2025 are mandatory in nature, and the
TGPCB, being the prescribed authority for the State, is bound
to implement the same to ensure uniformity and environmental
safety. The impugned Circular is thus not an independent or
11
arbitrary exercise of power, but a consequential action taken in
furtherance of binding national guidelines.
iv. Guideline No. 14 provides a rational and well-structured
methodology for fixation of user charges by prescribing
different models for bedded and non-bedded healthcare
facilities. The distinction is based on several relevant
considerations, including capacity, nature of operations, and
potential waste generation.
v. The “per bed per day” model for bedded hospitals is adopted as
a reliable proxy for estimating maximum waste generation and
for facilitating effective logistical planning by CBMWTF
operators. The operators are required to ensure compliance with
statutory timelines, including treatment and disposal within
prescribed time limits, and must therefore plan infrastructure,
transportation, and treatment capacity based on the potential
load generated by healthcare facilities.
vi. Reliance solely on actual daily weight of waste would lead to
uncertainty, operational inefficiencies, and environmental risks,
12
particularly in cases of sudden surges in waste generation. The
per bed model, therefore, ensures predictability, stability, and
preparedness in waste management systems.
vii. Bedded hospitals generate more diverse and hazardous
categories of bio-medical waste, including waste from surgical
procedures, intensive care units, and inpatient services, which
require specialized handling and treatment. The charging
mechanism takes into account not merely the quantity but also
the nature and complexity of waste.
viii. CBMWTFs involve substantial capital investment and recurring
operational costs, including manpower, transportation, fuel,
electricity, and compliance with environmental standards. A
stable and predictable revenue model, such as the per bed per
day system, is essential to ensure financial viability and
sustainability of such facilities, failing which the entire bio-
medical waste management framework would be jeopardized.
ix. The methodology adopted is administratively feasible and
minimizes disputes, whereas a purely weight-based system
13
would be cumbersome, prone to discrepancies, and difficult to
implement on a daily basis across numerous healthcare
facilities.
x. It placed reliance on the detailed consultative process
undertaken prior to fixation of user charges, including
deliberations with stakeholders, advisory committees, and
consideration of practices prevailing in other States, thereby
demonstrating that the decision is neither arbitrary nor
unilateral.
xi. The classification between bedded and non-bedded healthcare
facilities is based on intelligible differentia having a rational
nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and therefore does
not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
12. With the said contentions, it sought to dismiss the writ
petition.
14
13. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos. 5-15
i. CBMWTF operators are engaged in the collection,
transportation, treatment, and disposal of bio-medical waste in
strict compliance with the Bio-Medical Waste Management
Rules, 2016, and the guidelines issued by the CPCB. The
functioning of such facilities involves significant capital
investment in infrastructure, machinery, and technology, along
with substantial recurring operational costs including
manpower, fuel, electricity, maintenance, and statutory
compliance requirements.
ii. The fixation of user charges on a “per bed per day” basis for
bedded healthcare facilities ensures a stable and predictable
revenue stream, which is essential for the financial viability and
sustainability of CBMWTFs. It is argued that if the charges are
made entirely dependent on fluctuating waste generation, the
operators would face serious financial uncertainty, thereby
adversely affecting their ability to maintain continuous and
compliant operations.
15
iii. The bedded hospitals, by virtue of their size, capacity, and
nature of services, generate not only larger quantities but also
more complex and hazardous categories of bio-medical waste,
requiring specialized handling, segregation, and treatment.
Therefore, the differential charging mechanism is justified and
based on practical considerations.
iv. The per bed per day model enables effective logistical planning,
including route optimization, allocation of transport vehicles,
and treatment capacity, as the operators are required to be
prepared for maximum potential waste generation at any given
time.
v. The impugned guideline strikes a balance between the interests
of healthcare facilities and the operators, ensuring that the
charges are neither monopolistic nor detrimental to the
sustainability of the system, as expressly contemplated under
Guideline No. 14.
vi. The petitioners cannot seek to impose a uniform weight-based
charging system, which would be impractical, administratively
16
burdensome, and detrimental to efficient waste management,
and that the present challenge is essentially against a policy
decision taken in public interest.
14. With the said contentions, they sought to dismiss the writ
petition.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and contentions, the
principal question that falls for consideration of this Court is:
Whether Guideline No. 14 of the CPCB Guidelines, 2025, and the
consequential Circular dated 04.06.2025 issued by the Telangana Pollution
Control Board, insofar as they prescribe user charges on a per bed per day
basis for bedded healthcare facilities while adopting a different charging
methodology for non-bedded healthcare facilities, suffer from hostile
discrimination and thereby infringe Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
16. At the outset, it must be observed that the present matter
arises in the context of environmental regulation under the Bio-
Medical Waste Management regime, where the charges in question are
regulatory and service-linked in nature. The impugned guideline itself
proceeds on the footing that the cost to be charged by the Common
17
Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility operator is integrally connected
with financial viability, sustainable operation, and continued
compliance with the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016,
and it specifically contemplates separate methodologies for non-
bedded and bedded healthcare units. The petitioners do not dispute the
existence of the regulatory framework; their grievance is confined to
the differential basis of computation.
17. The settled position under Article 14 is that a classification
is constitutionally valid if it is founded on an intelligible differentia
and if such differentia has a rational nexus to the object sought to be
achieved. Equally, a court while examining a challenge to a policy
measure does not sit as an appellate authority over the wisdom of the
policy, but only examines whether the classification is manifestly
arbitrary, artificial, evasive or unrelated to the statutory object.
18. In this context, it is apt to note that the Apex Court in
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India 1 which emphasizes that a valid
classification must rest on a definite yardstick; the distinction must be
1
(2024) 15 SCC 535
18
real, pertinent and discernible; the dividing line must not be illusory,
vague or indeterminate; and the basis cannot be arbitrary or evasive.
19. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted
below:-
181. A valid classification under Article 14
presupposes a definite yardstick to distinguish the classes
created, and the difference must be real, pertinent and
discernible. [Murthy Match Works v. CCE, (1974) 4 SCC
428] The State is free to recognise degrees of harm as long as
the basis of classification is not arbitrary, artificial, or
evasive. The line between the two classes must be clear and
not illusory, vague, and indeterminate
20. Even going by that test, the present classification cannot be
faulted. The yardstick adopted here is the number of beds, which is
neither subjective nor fluid, but an objective and verifiable index
reflected in the statutory consents and authorizations of the healthcare
facility. Further, the distinction between a bedded and a non-bedded
facility is not merely formal; it is rooted in the very nature of
healthcare delivery, the scale of operations, the intensity of patient
handling, and the potentiality and complexity of waste generation.
19
21. The plea of the petitioners proceeds on the assumption that
actual waste weight alone is the only constitutionally permissible
basis for user charges. This assumption, in the opinion of this Court, is
misplaced. A bedded hospital is not comparable to a non-bedded clinic
merely because both generate bio-medical waste. Bedded facilities
render inpatient care, often round the clock, and ordinarily include
wards, procedure rooms, operation theatres, ICUs, maternity units and
recovery facilities. Their waste stream is correspondingly more
diverse and potentially more hazardous. Respondent No. 4 has
specifically pleaded that such hospitals generate anatomical waste,
soiled waste, sharps, pathological waste, pharmaceutical waste and
chemical waste in a manner qualitatively distinct from the limited
waste profile of outpatient clinics and diagnostic establishments. It is
this functional and operational distinction that furnishes the
intelligible differentia.
22. The nexus between the classification and the object of the
guideline is also direct and evident. The object is not merely recovery
of a charge, but ensuring continuous, timely and environmentally
20
sound collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of biomedical
waste through financially viable and logistically prepared CBMWTFs.
For such operators, the number of beds constitutes a stable proxy for
the maximum potential load that may arise from a facility. As pleaded
by Respondent No. 4, the operator must plan transport routes, fleet
size, manpower, handling capacity and treatment preparedness in
advance so as to comply with the statutory timelines under the Rules.
A model exclusively dependent on fluctuating day-to-day waste
weight may not furnish the certainty necessary for such planning and
may itself become a source of disputes, under-preparedness and
environmental risk. Thus, the differentia is not only real, but bears a
clear nexus with the regulatory objective.
23. The principle laid down by the Apex Court in Ayurveda
Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu2 does not advance the petitioners’
case. On the contrary, paragraphs 5 and 6 therein reinforce the true
constitutional standard. In paragraph 5, the Supreme Court observed
that where commodities belong to the same category, the question is
2
(1989) 2 SCC 285
21
whether there exists a relevant justification for treating them
differently. In paragraph 6, the Court held that while the Legislature or
the State may prescribe different rates for different commodities, if the
items belong to the same class or category there must exist a rational
basis for discrimination, and where the reason put forward is
extraneous to the object of the law, the distinction cannot be sustained.
24. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted
below:-
6. …It is open to the legislature, or the State
Government if it is authorised in that behalf by the
legislature, to select different rates of tax for different
commodities. But where the commodities belong to the same
class or category, there must be a rational basis for
discriminating between one commodity and another for the
purpose of imposing tax. It is commonly known that
considerations of economic policy constitute a basis for
levying different rates of sales tax. For instance, the object
may be to encourage a certain trade or industry in the context
of the State policy for economic growth, and a lower rate
would be considered justified in the case of such a
commodity. There may be several such considerations
bearing directly on the choice of the rate of sales tax, and so
long as there is good reason for making the distinction from
other commodities no complaint can be made. What the
actual rate should be is not a matter for the courts to
determine generally, but where a distinction is made between
commodities falling in the same category a question arises at
once before a court whether there is justification for the
discrimination…
22
25. The present case stands on a different footing. First, bedded
and non-bedded healthcare facilities cannot be treated as
homogeneous units for all regulatory purposes. Their service profile,
waste generation pattern, treatment demands and logistical
implications materially differ. Secondly, the basis of the present
distinction is not extraneous to the statutory object. The per bed
methodology is adopted precisely to subserve the object of
sustainable, safe and compliant biomedical waste management.
Thirdly, the charge here is regulatory and service-linked, not a general
fiscal impost divorced from actual service architecture. Therefore, the
ratio of Ayurveda Pharmacy (supra) is that a classification fails
when the basis of distinction is alien to the object of the law; it does
not prohibit differentiation where the basis is itself drawn from
operational realities connected with the statutory purpose.
26. The scope of judicial review in matters of policy is well
settled. In Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India 3, the
3
(2002) 2 SCC 333
23
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that courts do not sit in appeal over the
wisdom or desirability of policy decisions, and such decisions cannot
be interfered with merely because an alternative approach may appear
more reasonable. Judicial interference is warranted only where the
policy is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide,
or violative of statutory or constitutional provisions. Policy choices,
particularly those involving technical, financial, and administrative
considerations, fall within the domain of the executive, and so long as
the decision-making process is bona fide and within the bounds of
law, the Court must exercise restraint.
46. It is evident from the above that it is neither
within the domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial
review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular
public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be
evolved. Nor are our courts inclined to strike down a policy
at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged
that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or
more scientific or more logical.
27. Tested on that standard, the impugned classification cannot
be characterized as arbitrary. The material on record shows that the
charging structure did not emerge overnight or in isolation.
Respondent No. 4 has placed on record that after the 2016 guidelines,
24
the issue of user charges was deliberated in the State Advisory
Committee; a committee of experts and senior officials was
constituted; consultations were held with THANA, IMA,
representatives of government hospitals and other stakeholders;
comparative user charge structures in several States were examined;
and the revised regime was thereafter evolved. The 2025 CPCB
guideline also expressly contemplates that the cost model should be
worked out keeping in view the size of the facility, the number of
beds, and other operational factors. Such an exercise, involving
technical and environmental considerations, is plainly within the
domain of specialized regulatory authorities.
28. This Court is also unable to accept the submission that
actual occupancy alone should determine the chargeability of bedded
hospitals. Occupancy is inherently variable and transient. The
regulatory obligation of the CBMWTF operator, however, is not
contingent upon average occupancy but upon maintaining readiness to
service authorized facilities within the statutory timeline. The relevant
consideration for systemic planning is therefore potentiality of
25
generation correlated with licensed capacity, and not merely actual
generation on a given day. The law does not require the State to
choose the most mathematically exact standard; it requires that the
standard adopted must be reasonable, objective and relevant. The bed-
strength based metric answers that description.
29. At the same time, the Court must observe that the validity of
the classification does not place the regulatory regime beyond scrutiny
altogether. The guideline itself contemplates periodic revision in
consultation with the concerned authorities, local medical associations
and representatives of the CBMWTF association. Therefore, while the
constitutional challenge to the basis of classification does not merit
acceptance, the authorities remain under a continuing obligation to
ensure that rates are periodically reviewed and that the burden
imposed remains proportionate to the object sought to be achieved.
CONCLUSION
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the classification between bedded and non-
26
bedded healthcare facilities under Guideline No. 14 is founded on an
intelligible differentia, namely the scale, nature and potentiality of
bio-medical waste generation, and bears a rational nexus with the
object sought to be achieved, i.e., ensuring an efficient, sustainable
and environmentally compliant bio-medical waste management
system.
31. The challenge mounted by the petitioners, in substance,
seeks substitution of the policy adopted by the expert regulatory
authorities with an alternative mechanism preferred by them. Such an
exercise is impermissible in the limited scope of judicial review,
particularly in matters involving technical and policy considerations,
unless the impugned action is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or
unconstitutional, which, in the present case, has not been established.
32. This Court also takes note of the fact that the impugned
mechanism has been evolved after due deliberation, consultation with
stakeholders, and consideration of prevailing practices across various
States, thereby reinforcing its reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.
27
33. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition
and the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. However, the
respondent Nos.3 – CPCB and respondent No.4 – TPCB authorities
shall continue to periodically review the charging mechanism as per
CPCB Guidelines to ensure that it remains fair, reasonable and
proportionate to the object sought to be achieved. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
in the writ petition shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
___________________________________
JUSTICE B.R MADHUSUDHAN RAO
Date: 02. 04.2026.
VVR
