- (1.) The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Employees" Union, represented by its President C.Satish Kumar filed the present Writ Petition challenging the agreement dated 21.02.2009 entered into by the second respondent with the third respondent for the purpose of developing integrated MSW management syManagement and Handling) Rules, 2000 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "MSW Rules, 2000"), in the matter of disposal of Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW), this Writ Petition is filed. THE city of Hyderabad has an area of 638 square kilometers and its population as in the year 2009 was 77.92 lakhs. By virtue of merger of the outskirt municipalities in the year 2007, GHMC came into existence, which is divided into five zones. It is estimated during the year 2009 that solid waste generated in the city is around 4350 metric tones per day. GHMC arranged 3259 dumper bins. THE waste is collected from the dumper bins and open points and transported through dumper placers, tippers and tractors to the transfer station. THE contents of these smaller vehicles are transferred directly into bigger long haul tipper vehicles through a specially designed hopper. THEse big tipper trucks take the waste to the final disposal site. At present, there are three transfer stations in operation i.e. Lower Tankbund, Yousufguda and Imliban. THE disposal sites are situated at Jawahar Nagar, Fatullaguda, Shamshiguda, BHEL, Auto Nagar and Gandamguda. THEre is an existing and a proposed waste processing facility in GHMC area and both the facilities are based on the concept of conversion of waste to RDF and generating power from it. THE second respondent has agreements with M/s. Selco International Limited and M/s. RDF Power Projects Limited whereunder the said companies would be supplied with the solid waste for the purpose of generating power from the processing of the waste, and the said companies pay Rs.10/- per metric ton to the second respondent and under the above mentioned agreements, the companies are supplied with 700 TPD each of MSW. From the provisions of Chapter XIV of the GHMC Act, 1955, it is clear that it is for the second respondent to do all the things provided therein and to discharge all the obligations imposed thereunder. THEre is no provision for handing over all the functions relating to scavenging and cleaning of the corporation area and the functions like collection of the solid waste from the primary sources, installation of the receptacles, transportation of the solid waste, disposal of the same to a third party. THE Government of India framed the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "MSW Rules, 2000") in exercise of powers under Sections 3, 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. THE Rules make it clear that it is the responsibility of the municipality to arrange for the collection of the solid waste, its storage and transportation. It is only for the purpose of disposal of the solid waste that the municipality can involve a private person that too on certain conditions pertaining to the supply of solid waste. THEse rules do not empower the corporation to totally handover all the functions relating to collection of the solid waste from the primary sources, storage, transportation and final disposal to a private party in toto. THE first respondent issued G.O. Rt. No.859, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (J) Department, dated 20.12.2008 approving proposal for establishment of integrated solid waste management project for GHMC under public private partnership mode and also under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (for short, hereinafter referred to as "JNNURM") with a total estimated cost of Rs.897 crorers with JNNURM funds subject to the conditions that if the proportionate share of the Government of India and the State Government of the eligible project cost under JNNURM is not materialized, the GHMC shall bear that cost and the rest of the project cost shall be borne by the Concessionaire. In order to execute such a huge project, the second respondent ought to have invited global tenders but did not do so and instead received bids from only two parties i.e. the third respondent herein and M/s. Gujarat Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited. Respondents 1 and 2 agreed to pay tipping fee to the Concessionaire for the purpose of collection and transportation of the solid waste and basing on the rates quoted by the above mentioned bidders, the bid of the third respondent herein was accepted. THE third respondent accepted for the tipping fee of Rs.1431/- per metric ton of solid waste and accordingly the Government has issued G.O.Ms.NO.136, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (J) Department, dated 19.2.2009 approving the L1 bid of the third respondent herein with tipping fee of Rs.1431/- per metric ton for implementation of the integrated MSW management programme in GHMC, and the second respondent was directed to take necessary further action. THE second respondent entered into impugned agreement dated 21.2.2009 with the third respondent, known as "Concession Agreement", for the purpose of collection, transportation, processing and disposal of MSW and several clauses of the said agreement are not only contrary to law but are biased in favour of the third respondent and injurious to the public at large. THE terms of the agreement enable the third respondent to have a total control over all the operations pertaining to the collection of MSW from all the primary sources, storing the MSW, transportation and final disposal of the same. THE third respondent is given with a power to collect @ Rs.25/- from each individual household of the GHMC excluding slum dwellers and households below poverty line, and it is authorized to collect from the commercial establishments at the rates prescribed by the Director of Municipal Administration. THE second respondent will pay @ Rs.1431/- per ton of MSW to the third respondent. THE third respondent is authorized to use the MSW for any purpose and dispose of the same in any manner and also to appropriate the proceeds from the utilization of the MSW to the fullest extent. THE tipping fee is subject to yearly upward revision @ 5%. THE present dump sites of the GHMC would be under the control of the third respondent and the same can be used by it towards providing parking facilities without anything to be paid to GHMC. THE project site of Ac.320.00 at Jawahar Nagar will also be under the control of the third respondent and the employees/officers of the GHMC cannot have any right to interfere with the operations of the third respondent. Appointment of independent engineer and replacement of the engineer, would be done subject to the choice of the third respondent. All the existing infrastructure like dumber binds, vehicles, transfer stations will stand handed over to the third respondent for its exclusive usage. THE third respondent would be employing its own men for implementing the project which would result in removal of the existing staff of GHMC connected with the solid waste disposal.
(2.) Terms and conditions of the Concession Agreement dated 21.2.2009 are contrary to the provisions of Chapter XIV of GHMC Act, 1955 and MSW Rules, 2000. Neither of them empowers respondents 1 and 2 to completely handover all the functions pertaining to collection of the MSW from the primary sources, storage, transportation and disposal to a third party exclusively. As per the Act, MSW is a property of the municipality and hence, proceeds derived from the treatment of MSW shall belong to the second respondent, but not to third respondent. But, the terms of the Concession agreement run contrary to the above and totally detach the second respondent from all its statutory duties and confer the same on the third respondent for its benefit. Further, the fixing of the tipping fee with the periodical upward revision is a gross abuse of power on the part of respondents 1 and 2 and it is intended to cause undue and immense benefit to the third respondent in a calculated manner. At present, the second respondent is incurring cost of Rs.570/- per metric ton of MSW towards collection, transportation and dumping and there are no justified reasons for fixation of the tipping fee at Rs.1431/- per metric ton when all the existing infrastructure, dump yards and project site of GHMC are being transferred in favour of the third respondent free of cost. The impugned agreement is intended to benefit the third respondent in a large scale at the cost of public exchequer and at the cost of infringing the law and it is mala fide, colourable exercise of power on the part of respondents 1 and 2. There is likelihood of hundreds of existing employees of GHMC being removed from service as soon as the third respondent starts implementing the agreement. The petitioner, which is deeply interested in protecting rights of its members and also in seeing that the second respondent functions in accordance with the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955, is having locus standi to file this Writ Petition. Though the investment of the third respondent is only partial, benefits derived by it are undue leading to illegitimate enrichment of the third respondent. At present, the second respondent is incurring around Rs.595/- per metric ton for collection and disposal of the solid waste, whereas under the impugned agreement, an amount of Rs.1431/- is agreed to be paid to the third respondent. Apart from the tipping fee, the third respondent is benefited substantially in various ways by collecting amounts from household, ice cream parlours, bakeries, corporate hospitals, hotels, lodging places, etc. at the rates mentioned in proceedings No.2807/AC(H&S)/GHMC/2010, dated 29.07.2010 issued by the first respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 do not have any power to delegate right to collect garbage charges to a third party permitting him to appropriate such an amount without accounting it to the municipal fund. Apart from above, by virtue of the impugned agreement, the third respondent would be entitled to -sell, distribute compost/manure/energy and other recyclables derived from MSW for a period of 25 years; to receive all revenue that may be generated through advertising using the movables, fixed assets of the project including those transferred from GHMC; right to appropriate, possess and control etc. all the buildings, structures and infrastructures that may be existing with reference to MSW management in GHMC as of the date of agreement and the GHMC shall hand over existing infrastructure like dumber bins, vehicles, transfer stations, etc., which will be used free of cost by the third respondent. Further more, 50% of the project cost would be borne under JNNURM scheme by the Central and State Governments failing which GHMC is going to bear it. There is no provision in the impugned agreement to absorb the existing staff or to continue the existing staff by the third respondent. Third respondent is not under obligation to carry on MSW collection storage and transport operations through the existing employees of GHMC. Hence, this Writ Petition. The first respondent filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that the agreement between respondents 2 and 3 is made with due respect to the national laws and following all the required procedures as laid down by the GHMC for this purpose and also in consonance with the MSW Rules, 2000. The petitioner union is not a recognized one. The second respondent is trying its best to provide good civic amenities to citizens living in GHMC area in accordance with MSW Rules, 2000. The object of public and private partnership is to provide a transparent and efficient services to the citizens by providing good infrastructure, mobilizing finances. The project cost as shown in G.O.Ms. NO.136, dated 19.2.2009 is Rs.897 crores is reduced subsequently to Rs.792.95 crores during scrutiny, and even this cost is further reduced to Rs.434.91 crores based on its eligibility as per guidelines of JNNURM. As per the Government Order, the second respondent invited expression of interest in national papers as per the procedure followed by other major cities in India and followed transparent procedure in selection of the third respondent. Government of Andhra Pradesh constituted both technical and state level committees to undertake Techno Economic Assessment of bids received for MSW Processing Plants in various Municipal Corporations and Municipalities in the Andhra Pradesh. Technical committee shall scrutinize the proposals and evaluate the bids received to establish the MSW plants and give recommendations to the State Level Official Committee, which shall take further action based on the recommendations of the Technical Committee. The first respondent also constituted a technical committee and a tender approval committee consisting of officers to examine bidding the techno legal financial aspects. The second respondent utilized services of M/s. Infrastructure Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (INCAP) for techno, economic and legal analysis and to evaluate the process of bidding and finalization as per rules. INCAP had taken services of IDFC, Bangalore, a best professional company in the country in providing consultancy services in the field of infrastructure development including solid waste management. The Concessionaire Agreement is not violating the provisions of Chapter XIV of GHMC Act, 1955 and MSW Rules, 2000. MSW management sector in India is currently guided by MSW Rules, 2000. The rules seek to achieve management of solid waste from door to door collection to treatment and disposal on scientific basis resulting in healthy environment. Significantly, open dumping is recognized as a practice in GHMC area which is against law. Pursuant to the Hon"ble Supreme Court initiatives, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India formulated the MSW Rules, 2000 which makes it mandatory for every municipal authority to implement a scientific solid waste management system. In order to achieve the mega city status and to provide better services to its citizens, a need was felt for development and implementation of a comprehensive MSW management system. JNNURM Guidelines stipulates participation of private sector in development, management and financing of urban infrastructure projects which involve long term implementation with high dose of technology and investment. Primary collection, transportation and segregation of waste will play an important role in successful functioning of the treatment and scientific disposal facilities. The activities relating to IMSWM are required to be handled by a single agency rather than multiple agencies because each activity of ISWM is interconnected to other activities. Presently, the second respondent is incurring cost of Rs.800-900 per metric ton of MSW towards collection, transportation and open disposal. The tipping fee of Rs.1431/- permitting the third respondent to take the revenue coming from the treatment and disposal and authorized to collect the user charges from the households and commercial establishments is based on the techno commercial viability of the project. Concessionaire agreement is totally in line with all the existing rules and regulations guiding MSW management sector in the country. 4118 Nos. of permanent employees and 15623 Nos. of outsourcing employees are working in MSW collection, transportation and dumping in the second respondent. The permanent work force of the second respondent under MSW activity would still be under the rolls of the second respondent in other activities like street sweeping, cleaning of drains, collection and transportation of debris, etc., and the GHMC proposes to hand over all the outsourcing employees presently working in MSW activities to the fold of the third respondent as and where is condition without detrimental to the interest of the workforce and the third respondent would honour all the existing terms and conditions of the outsourcing workforce and there is no retrenchment. The agreement under challenge had already commenced its operations in Jawaharnagar dumpsite. Independent Engineer approved the Master Plan for the said dumpsite, designs for establishing for treatment and disposal faculties are prepared by the third respondent and submitted to the Engineer for scrutiny and approval. Land development activities are in full swing at the dumpsite. The petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the agreement executed in favour of the third respondent by the second respondent. The third respondent addressed letter dated 22.9.2009 to the second respondent asserting that none of the employees would be retrenched and the Rickshaw pullers would not be disturbed. So, the petitioner need not apprehend that the employees would loose their jobs. Such a grievance cannot be canvassed by the union unless the parties are particularly affected. G.O. Ms. No.136, dated 19.2.2009 was issued after duly complying with all the procedure contemplated under the Rules. The said G.O. has not been challenged and without challenging the said G.O., the petitioner does not have any right to challenge the consequential agreement that was executed pursuant to the Government Order. Only after taking all the accruable to the Concessionaire, the short-listed bidders had quoted the tipping fee, otherwise, the tipping fee would have been much more. Hence, the first respondent prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. The second respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the writ affidavit and stating inter alia that as per clause of the MSW Rules, 2000, every Municipal Authority shall be responsible for implementation of the said Rules and for any infrastructure development for collection, segregation, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of MSW. It is often misunderstood that commodities like compost gas and energy can be generated out of municipal water and that any operator could sustain with the sale proceeds of such commodities derived out of municipal waste without any support revenue in the for of tipping fee. On the other hand, royalty is sought by such developers to be paid to municipality for letting the operator to use the resource of municipal waste to derive commodities. Such royalty based projects did not take off and in some cases these developers who offered royalty defaulted on payment of royalty or have not paid at all. M/s.Selco International Limited, one of the processing facilities in the area of GHMC, defaulted on payment of royalty due to the corporation to the extent of several hundreds of lakhs and the same is defunct since 2009. The petitioner heavily relied upon the royalty payment with a mistaken version that such a royalty payment ought to have been structured in the tender to benefit the corporation. The corporation has been dumping waste at several places and on being served with several notices by Pollution Control Board of the State, the dumping of the waste at these places was discontinued and a new site at Jawahar Nagar was identified in the year 2004 and it has a 60 lakh tones of waste today and 90% of Ac.331.00 of land is filled with waste and the said site presents a distressing scenario with open burning which is prohibited by the MSW Rules, 2000, leach ate stagnation causing environmental degradation. JNNURM is a mission launched by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India to improve urban infrastructure like roads, highways, water, sewage and solid waste sectors under the scheme and the municipalities would submit a detailed project reports to the Government of India to obtain grant of JNNURM funds after technical due diligence by the Government of India. Cities like Bangalore, Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi and many other cities in the country have undertaken MSW management under various public private partnership frameworks. The corporation is trying its best to provide good civic amenities to the citizens living in the corporation area. The object is to provide transparent and efficient services to the citizens by providing good infrastructure mobilizing services. In pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.859, dated 20.12.2008 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, GHMC invited expression of interest by giving wide publicity on 17.06.2008 through national news papers and as per the existing procedures followed by the other major cities in India for MSW management. In pursuance of the agreement impugned, an independent engineer, a third party agency was appointed as per the condition stipulated in the agreement and subsequently the third respondent had taken over the dump yard at Jawaharnagar and leveled the land and also started constructions for establishing necessary infrastructure and the scientific treatment plant and the work is in progress. The fixation of the tipping fee and its yearly upward revision are purely based on the commercial viability of the project. GHMC permitted the third respondent only for access into the site and to set up all the facilities required for treatment and disposal of sewage waste as per the said agreement. GHMC has right to interfere with the operations of the third respondent at any time. The staff position in the transport department is also indicated in the counter. The counter affidavit reiterated the contentions raised by the first respondent-government in its counter affidavit. For carrying out collection of municipal sewage waste from secondary collection points and transporting to dump sites, GHMC is spending Rs.90.00 crores to Rs.100.00 crores which works out approximately to Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- per metric ton. As per the agreement impugned, GHMC has to pay Rs.859/- per ton (60% of the tipping fee of Rs.1431/-) to the concessionaire for collection, transportation and open disposal, which is less than the present expenditure. In fact, the GHMC is spending Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- per ton for operation and maintenance only, but for Rs.859/- per ton, the concessionaire has to not only operate and maintain the existing system but also has to improve it by deploying additional vehicles and equipments, upgrade the three existing transfer stations, develop five new transfer stations, work shop facilities and parking areas. The waste generation in GHMC area is around 3800 TPD, which is worked out to Rs.198.48 crores tipping fee per annum and not Rs.231.82 crores as mentioned. Out of the total tipping fee of Rs.1431/-, 40% i.e. Rs.572/- per ton will be paid for processing and disposal of MSW at dump site. For this purpose, the concessionaire has to establish and operate integrated MSW management facilities at dump site, which include segregation plant, compost plant, RDF plant, waste to energy, landfill, leachate, collection and treatment plant, green belt, support infrastructure, etc. including capping of 60 lakhs tones of cumulative dumped waste. The tipping fee has been arrived by taking into account the revenues, which the concessionaire might generate by selling compost/electricity. These revenues are quite low to recover the cost of capital and recurring investments. The tipping fee would have been high without JNNURM grant. Provision of annual increase at 5% in the tipping fee is made to neutralize inflation effect especially the fuel price. GHMC provided tricycles to operators for door to door collection of MSW, and the operators are informally charging Rs.20/- to Rs.25/- per month for the collection. The charges are higher in some posh areas of GHMC. The concessionaire agreed to allow the existing tricycle operators to continue their work and will not interfere in their business. It is the responsibility of the Corporation to collect and dispose of inverts, which also involves cost. By entrusting the project to the third respondent, who will undertake a comprehensive SWM system wherein the entire responsibility vests with the respondent. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
(3.) The second respondent filed additional counter affidavit stating inter alia as follows. At the instance of the Government of India and on the insistence of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and Central Pollution Control Board for implementation of MSW Rules, 2000, the second respondent corporation initiated an integrated solid waste management project for collection segregation, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of MSWs scientifically to prevent the pollution in the GHMC area. After following transparent procedure, the second respondent selected the third respondent for execution of the said work and entered into the impugned agreement dated 21.2.2009 and in pursuance of the same, handed over garbage dump yard at Jawaharnagar and Shameerpet and the work has already been commenced. THEre is no apprehension for the permanent employees or contingent employees working in the second respondent corporation of loosing their employment with the said agreement. THE petitioner union, representing a small group of employees working in the corporation, has no locus standi to question the agreement. The third respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ affidavit and stated inter aia that the petitioner is unrecognized union of GHMC. GHMC followed all the procedures contemplated by law for issuing the tenders and selection of successful tendered. This respondent invested crores of rupees to prepare infrastructure to remove and process garbage as per the statutory provisions. The basic infrastructure has to be constructed for disposal of garbage without spoiling the land and environment by investing huge amounts. Considering various aspects of the project, its technical and financial viabilities and capacity to invest and in view of the track record of the third respondent with bigger municipal corporations only, second respondent awarded the agreement. It is not out of place to mention that garbage already dumped in various dumping yards became health hazard to the nearby residential areas and some of the persons are already suffering from diseases. The underground water is getting contaminated and it is necessary to cap some of the areas, otherwise, the gases may emanate and cause danger to the public life as well as pollute entire environment. There is no privity of contract between the contesting respondents and this respondent to be adjudicated. On the face of the writ affidavit, it looks like that of public interest litigation and not for real enforcement of any legal right. It is learnt that according to the estimates of the second respondent, the area in its operation is generating 3800 metric tones of solid waste every day and because of day-to-day increase in the population in the urban areas, the material solid waste disposal has become very critical. As per the MSW Rules, 2000, the second respondent prepared infrastructure, machinery, equipment, transporting vehicles and engaged manpower including contract labour manage the solid waste, but in view of the voluminous increase in the solid waste and the technologies involved for the treatment of the same, compliance of the statutes and rules applicable to it has become a major challenge. The pollutants emerged from the solid wastes which are the direct and indirect cause for contamination of water and air, posed a serious threat for the public health. In view of complexity of nature of work requiring huge amount of finance to carry out the works, the Government of India put in place the guidelines on the public private partnership for undertaking MSW projects. In pursuance of the same, the second respondent with the consent of the first respondent, proposed to have a comprehensive, integrated solid waste management system complying with MSW Rules by utilizing the modern technology, and accordingly, invited expression of interest from reputed firms. This respondent is one of the bidders with offered lowest tipping fee of Rs.1449/- per ton. This respondent has a good track record of expertise and technical skills to execute management of the solid waste and also enjoying status of a reputed company in the country, and proved to be successful in other cities in the country. The agreement impugned is based on the tender conditions and draft of the said agreement formed part of tender documents, as such, the allegation of the petitioner that clauses in the agreement were designed to give undue benefit to this respondent is totally incorrect. As a part of public-private partnership, the second respondent towards its participation, contributed the project site of Ac.320.00 of land at Jawaharnagar as dumping yard which was already use as dumpling yard for solid waste and also provided the existing available vehicles in as and where condition for the said purpose. The second respondent, in order to comply the parameters fixed by the Hon"ble Supreme Court of India as well as MSW Rules, 2000 and provisions of GHMC Act, 1955, opted to operate through an expert operating agency after following due procedures contemplated under the statutes and rules. The second respondent is empowered to operate even through a private agency as per the provisions of the MSW Rules, 2000, which is also admitted by the petitioner in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ affidavit. Under the agreement impugned, there are mutual obligations on the part of both the parties. The Concession period for the third respondent is for 25 years and this respondent is mandated to upgrade, supplement and maintain the infrastructural facilities from time to time every 4 to 5 years during the tenure of the contract at its expense and to be handed over to the second respondent once the project period is completed. The third respondent communicated to the second respondent that it would take over the project "as is where is" basis and shall not resort to retrenchment of the contract workers and rickshaw pullers shall not be disturbed in their present activities. The third respondent started its activity at Jawaharnagar as well as other sites from 28.12.2009 and communicated the same to the second respondent. Works costing over Rs.17.74 crores have been completed and Rs.30.00 crores of work is under progress. The version of the petitioner is inconsistent and is not even well versed with the rules and laws of the land. There is no grievance as far as the parties to the impugned contract, which is pre-concluded one, and the petitioner, being third party to the contract impugned, has no locus standi and cannot question with reference to the tender and its value. The tipping fee is for entire gamut of activities starting from primary collection from each house to better management of municipal solid waste. Solid waste management is one of the top priority components of JNNURM which includes other infrastructures, such as bridges, roads, water supply, sewerage, and transport fleet, etc. and the scheme encourages execution of these projects under Public Private Partnership basis through an open tender process to select the concessionaire, wherein the respondent was selected in the case on hand. Therefore, the averment that this respondent is benefited by way of undue enrichment is far from truth and based on concoction of conjectures. The cost incurred by the second respondent is limited to the scope of secondary transportation and dumping of MSW without any treatment. As per clause 5.18 of the agreement impugned, the second respondent would have control on the measurement of the municipal solid waste. No act was done in a secretive manner to emerge surprise to one and all. Draft concession agreement is incorporated in the tender document which is a public document, and the petitioner had the opportunity to raise objections when the project was conceived and conceptualized, but it did not do so. The petitioner failed to establish the mala fide intentions in the conclusion of the agreement. The Government and the second respondent are benefited and deemed to comply the statutory obligations and stipulation laid by the Hon"ble Supreme Court of India without any hassles and also there is no health hazard at all. The project was commenced in East and West Zones and after satisfactory performance of this respondent only, it would be extended to other zones. The third respondent started construction and other activities at Jawaharnagar site and work is in progress. Once the treatment and disposal facility is ready for operation, GHMC will handover East and West Zones for collection and transportation of waste. The sweeping of roads and its maintenance to keep it clean, where maximum manpower is employed by GHMC, is not the part of the contract at all. To accommodate the existing manpower working in MSW is the responsibility of respondents 2 and 3, and the permanent employees working in MSW will be retained by GHMC. All the contract workers engaged in MSW activity will be accommodated by the third respondent. It is the policy decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh as well as the second respondent to outsource the solid waste management on Public-Private Partnership mode and design built, operate and transfer mechanism with its statutory obligation and one cannot interfere with such decision on the alleged ground that manpower connected to second respondent may be removed. The intrinsic economic value of recoverable of the municipal waste is lesser when compared to the capital and operating costs to be employed for processing. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.;