Concern over ‘waste-to-energy’ project remaining a non-starter

Dispute between civic body and a private firm stalls project

The Madras High Court Bench here has expressed concern over a novel project of converting waste into a source of generating electricity not having commenced in Tirunelveli Corporation limits, despite a resolution passed in 2013, due to a dispute between the civic body and a private firm over executing land lease agreement.

Disposing of a writ petition filed by the private firm AAPL (Tirunelveli) Clean Energy, Justice R. Mahadevan said that the Corporation should not have let the novel project of converting waste into energy to remain a non-starter when the general public expect civic authorities such as the Corporation Commissioner to keep their cities clean and free from diseases.

The judge began his judgement with German playwright Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe’s famous quote: “Let everyone sweep in front of his own door and the whole world will be clean,” and said that it “indicates the importance of the issue in the present writ petition” which had been filed to quash the Commissioner’s February 6 order terminating the agreement with the private firm.

He went on to state that the High Court could not quash the termination order by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 (power to issue writs) of the Constitution since what had been terminated was a private agreement. “It is well settled law that any dispute relating to interpretation of terms and conditions of such a contract cannot be agitated in a writ petition,” he observed.

In its affidavit, the petitioner firm claimed that it was the lowest bidder for the execution of the ‘waste to energy’ project decided to be implemented by Tirunelveli Corporation in 2013. Then, a concession agreement for 22 years was signed for a landfill facility to be established at Ramyanpatti under public private partnership mode on Design, Finance, Build, Operate and Transfer (DFBOT) basis.

However, the project could not take off since the petitioner firm accused the Corporation of hesitating to enter into a land lease agreement. On the other hand, the civic body claimed that the private firm had delayed commencement of the project despite being issued with ‘Enter Upon Permission’ letter for beginning necessary work at the designated site.