Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Kerala High Court

Swami Saranam Enterprises Represented ... vs State Of Kerala on 8 April, 2026

                                                          ​2026:KER:31403​
 ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​          ​1​




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
                      ​

                                            PRESENT​
                                            ​

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
               ​

                                               &​
                                               ​

                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR​
                     ​

                      TH​
                      ​
      WEDNESDAY, THE 8​
      ​                   DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 18TH CHAITHRA,​​
                          ​                                  1948​

                               WP(C) NO. 42787 OF 2025​
                               ​

PETITIONERS:​
​

      1​
      ​          ​WAMI SARANAM ENTERPRISES​
                 S
                 REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SANJEEV KUMAR.S.,​
                 ​
                 AGED 45 YEARS​
                 ​
                 GRA 35. RAMBANKUNNU RD, TPN, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305​
                 ​

      2​
      ​          ​ANJEEV KUMAR. S​
                 S
                 AGED 45 YEARS​
                 ​
                 S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR. N., PROPRIETOR,​
                 ​
                 SWAMI SARANAM ENTERPRISES, GRA 35. RAMBANKUNNU RD,​
                 ​
                 TPN, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT SREESHYLAM, I.N. MENON LINE,​
                 ​
                 VADAKKEKOTTA, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031​
                 ​


                 ​Y ADVS.​
                 B
                 SHRI. BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.​
                 ​
                 SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)​
                 ​
                 SHRI. GOVIND G. NAIR​
                 ​
                 SRI.BALU TOM​
                 ​
                 SRI.BONNY BENNY​
                 ​
                 SRI.P.M.RAJAGOPAL​
                 ​


RESPONDENTS:​

​ 1​ ​ ​TATE OF KERALA​ S REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO DEVASWOM (REVENUE),​ ​ GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,​ ​ PIN - 695001​ ​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​2​ 2​ ​ ​RAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD​ T REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,​ ​ DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE,​ ​ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003​ ​ 3​ ​ ​OMMISSIONER​ C TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,​ ​ OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER,​ ​ TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE,​ ​ NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695003​ ​ 4​ ​ ​XECUTIVE OFFICER​ E SABARIMALA-MALIKAPPURAM DEVASWOM,​ ​ SANNIDHANAM, SABARIMALA,​ ​ PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689662​ ​ 5​ ​ ​OREST DEPARTMENT​ F GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,​ ​ REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,​ ​ FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,​ ​ THYCAUD. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014​ ​ 6​ ​ ​ENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,​ C REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,​ ​ PARIVESH BHAWAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR,​ ​ DELHI, PIN - 110032​ ​ 7​ ​ ​REEN DOT BIPAK​ G GODOWN NO.1, JOSHI ESTATE -3, BLOCK NO.197,​ ​ B/H BHAGYODAY HOTEL, NR.SIDDHI OIL MILL,​ ​ CANAL ROAD, SARKHEJ-BAWLA HIGHWAY CHANGODAR,​ ​ AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT,​ ​ REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, PIN - 382213​ ​ ADDL R8​ ​ ​ KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD​ REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE,​ ​ P.O.PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM​ ​ ​ADDL R8 SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED​ ( 10.04.2026 IN IA NO. 2 OF 2025)​ ​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​3​ BY ADVS.​ ​ ​HI. G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD​ S SRI. K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN​ ​ SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,​ ​ SMT. RESHMI. K.M, SR GP​ ​ ​HIS​ ​ T WRIT​ ​ PETITION​ ​ (CIVIL)​ ​ HAVING​ ​ COME​ ​ UP​ ​ FOR​ ​ FINAL​ ​ HEARING​ ​ ON​ 08.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:​ ​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​4​ ​J U D G M E N T​ ​Raja Vijayaraghavan. V, J.​ ​Background And Nature Of The Petition:​ ​Swami​​Sharanam​​Enterprises,​​the​​1st​​petitioner​​herein,​​is​​a​​proprietary​​concern​ ​run​ ​by​ ​the​ ​2nd​ ​petitioner​ ​and​ ​is​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​the​ ​manufacture​ ​of​ ​plant-based,​ ​compostable​​bottles​​and​​allied​​products.​​The​​petitioners​​have​​approached​​this​​Court​ ​seeking​​a​​direction​​to​​the​​Travancore​​Devaswom​​Board​​to​​permit​​them​​to​​sell​​two​​of​ ​their​​products​​at​​Sannidhanam.​ ​Both​​products​​are​​packed​​in​​bottles​​made​​from​​PLA​ ​(Polylactic​ ​Acid)​ ​preforms​ ​sourced​ ​from​ ​the​ ​7th​ ​respondent.​ ​The​ ​bottles​ ​are​ ​blow-moulded​ ​from​ ​the​ ​preforms​ ​by​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​and​ ​filled​ ​with​ ​water​ ​at​ ​BLU​ ​Industries'​ ​facility​ ​at​ ​Mudakkuzha,​ ​Ernakulam,​ ​which​ ​concern​ ​holds​ ​a​ ​valid​ ​FSSAI​ ​licence.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​these​ ​materials​ ​are​ ​manufactured​ ​using​ ​100%​ ​biodegradable,​ ​plant-based​ ​products​ ​and​ ​are​ ​derived​ ​from​​renewable​​sources​​such​ ​as​ ​corn,​ ​sugarcane,​ ​and​ ​cassava.​ ​Though​ ​the​​final​​product​​resembles​​conventional​ ​plastic​ ​in​ ​appearance​ ​and​ ​texture,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​environmentally​ ​sustainable,​ ​as​ ​it​ ​is​ ​not​ ​derived​​from​​crude​​oil​​and​​is​​capable​​of​​decomposing​​under​​appropriate​​composting​ ​conditions.​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​5​ ​2.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​the​ ​materials​ ​sourced​ ​from​ ​the​ ​7th​ ​respondent​ ​carry​ ​certifications​ ​affirming​ ​their​ ​biodegradable​ ​nature,​ ​thereby​ ​positioning the product as an eco-friendly alternative to conventional plastic bottles.​ ​3.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​various​ ​tests​ ​have​ ​been​ ​carried​ ​out​ ​by​ ​the​ ​manufacturer​ ​which​ ​would​ ​show​ ​that​ ​none​ ​of​ ​the​ ​components​ ​of​ ​plastics​ ​or​ ​synthetic materials are present.​ ​a)​ ​Ext.P1​ ​is​ ​the​ ​DIN​ ​CERTCO​ ​certification​ ​issued​ ​in​ ​2020​ ​in​ ​respect​ ​of​ ​the​ ​raw​ ​materials​ ​in​​favor​​of​​Green​​Dot​​Biopak.​​The​​said​​report​​says​​that​​the​​holder​​of​ ​the​ ​certificate​ ​is​ ​granted​ ​the​ ​special​ ​entitlement​ ​for​ ​advertising​ ​purposes​ ​for​ ​the​ ​mark​ ​of​ ​conformity​ ​shown​ ​in​ ​the​ ​certificate​ ​in​ ​conjunction​ ​with​ ​the​ ​specified​ ​registration number.​ ​b)​ ​Ext.P2​ ​is​ ​the​ ​test​ ​report​ ​issued​ ​in​ ​the​ ​year​ ​2021​ ​by​ ​CIPET,​ ​Kochi,​ ​confirming​ ​that​ ​the​ ​pellets​ ​and​ ​film​ ​used​ ​are​ ​compostable.​ ​The​ ​material​ ​that​ ​was​ ​provided​​has​​been​​identified​​as​​a​​blend​​of​​Polylactic​​Acid​​and​​Poly​​Butylene​​Adipate​ ​Co-Terephthalate.​ ​The​ ​said​ ​certificate​ ​states​ ​that​ ​the​ ​submitted​ ​sample​ ​for​ ​testing​ ​consisted​ ​of​ ​compostable​ ​film​ ​made​ ​out​ ​of​ ​'Greendot'​ ​compostable​ ​pellets​ ​(as​ ​declared​ ​by​ ​the​ ​party)​ ​complies​ ​to​ ​the​ ​requirements​ ​of​ ​Cl.6.2​ ​&​ ​6.3​ ​of​ ​ISO​ ​17088-2012/IS 17088-2008.​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​6​ ​c)​ ​Exts.P3​ ​and​ ​P9​ ​are​ ​laboratory​ ​reports​​issued​​by​​HEXIQON​​Laboratory​​in​ ​the​ ​years​ ​2023​ ​and​ ​2025​​respectively,​​which​​certify​​that​​the​​final​​product​​does​​not​ ​contain any plastic or synthetic materials.​ ​d)​ ​Ext.P4​ ​is​ ​the​ ​certificate​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Central​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Board​​in​ ​2023​​to​​Green​​Dot​​Biopak​​for​​manufacturing​​and​​selling​​of​​compostable​​plastic​​bags​ ​and​ ​commodities​ ​in​ ​Indian​ ​Markets.​ ​The​ ​CPCB​ ​has​ ​issued​ ​the​ ​said​ ​certificate​ ​by​ ​imposing​​certain​​conditions.​​It​​says​​that​​the​​end​​product​​'​​compostable​​plastics'​​shall​ ​be​​manufactured​​using​​the​​raw​​materials​​'​​PLA​​,​​PBAT​​'​​and​​following​​the​​production​ ​process detailed in the schedule.​ ​e)​ ​Ext.P5​​is​​a​​certificate​​issued​​by​​Greendot​​Biopack​​declaring​​that​​they​​are​ ​supplying​ ​compostable​ ​preform​ ​to​ ​Swami​ ​Saranam​ ​Enterprises​ ​and​ ​they​ ​have​ ​appointed​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​petitioner​ ​as​ ​a​ ​final​ ​user​ ​and​ ​supplier​ ​for​ ​preform​ ​and​ ​compostable bottles.​ ​f )​ ​Ext.P9​ ​is​ ​the​ ​test​ ​report​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​HEXIQON,​ ​a​ ​private​ ​lab,​ ​to​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​petitioner​ ​to​ ​ascertain​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​compostable​ ​bottle​ ​conforms​ ​to​ ​IS​ ​15410,IS​ ​9845,​​IS​​3025​​Part​​2​​and​​ISO​​18856.​​It​​says​​that​​though​​the​​sampling​​was​​not​​done​ ​in a laboratory, the same conforms to the specification.​ ​g)​ ​Ext.P10​ ​is​ ​the​​Form​​C​​certificate​​issued​​by​​the​​Commissionerate​​of​​Food​ ​Safety​ ​,​ ​FSSAI,​ ​permitting​ ​Blu​ ​Industries​ ​,​ ​Perumbavoor,​ ​to​ ​carry​ ​out​ ​general​ ​manufacturing​ ​of​ ​Carbonated​ ​Fruit​ ​Beverages,​ ​Mineral​ ​Water,​ ​Packaged​ ​Drinking​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​7​ ​Water​ ​etc.​ ​Further,​ ​Exhibit​ ​P12​ ​is​ ​the​ ​test​ ​report​ ​dated​ ​December​ ​2025​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​CIPET,​ ​which​ ​confirms​ ​that​ ​the​ ​petitioner's​ ​bottle​ ​and​ ​bottle​ ​cap​ ​are​ ​made​ ​of​ ​polylactic acid.​ ​h)​ ​Ext.P11​ ​is​ ​a​ ​Lab​ ​Report​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​SMS​ ​Labs​ ​Services​ ​Pvt​ ​Limited​ ​certifying​ ​that​ ​the​ ​sample​ ​of​ ​water​ ​provided​ ​for​ ​testing​ ​by​ ​M/s​ ​Blu​ ​Industries​ ​Kodanad conforms to IS specifications.​ ​i)​ ​Ext.​ ​P12​ ​is​ ​the​​CIPET​​Test​​Report​​on​​the​​PLA​​Bottle​​issued​​in​​December​ ​2025.​​It​​is​​the​​Material​​identification​​test​​on​​the​​petitioner's​​finished​​bottle​​and​​cap.​ ​It​ ​says​ ​that​ ​the​ ​bottle​​is​​made​​of​​Polylactic​​acid​​(PLA)​​and​​the​​cap​​is​​made​​of​​Poly​ ​butylene adipate-co-terephthalate (PBAT).​ ​4.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​ ​petitioners​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​restriction​ ​or​ ​embargo​ ​on​ ​the​ ​supply​ ​of​ ​non-plastic​ ​products​ ​at​ ​Sabarimala,​ ​Pamba,​ ​and​ ​Nilakkal.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​further​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Central​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Board​ ​itself​ ​has​ ​certified​ ​the​ ​raw​ ​material​ ​manufacturer,​ ​Green​ ​Dot​ ​Biopak,​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Plastic​ ​Waste​ ​Management​ ​Rules, 2016 (PWM Rules , for brevity) .​ ​5.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​ ​petitioner,​ ​the​ ​bottles​ ​manufactured​ ​and​ ​sold​ ​by​ ​them​ ​can​​be​​effectively​​collected​​after​​use​​and​​recycled​​into​​other​​utility​​products​​such​​as​ ​spoons,​ ​forks,​ ​knives,​ ​and​​similar​​items.​​It​​is​​stated​​that​​the​​petitioner​​proposes​​to​ ​deploy​ ​dedicated​ ​staff​ ​to​ ​collect​ ​used​ ​bottles​ ​from​ ​waste​ ​management​ ​points​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​they​ ​are​ ​channelled​ ​for​ ​proper​ ​recycling.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​alternative,​ ​the​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​8​ ​petitioner​ ​submits​ ​that,​ ​if​ ​subjected​ ​to​ ​composting,​ ​the​ ​products​ ​will​ ​naturally​ ​decompose​ ​in​ ​soil​ ​or​ ​composting​ ​facilities,​ ​in​ ​a​ ​manner​ ​comparable​ ​to​ ​paper​ ​or​ ​cardboard.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​further​​contended​​that,​​in​​situations​​where​​disposal​​by​​incineration​ ​becomes​ ​necessary,​ ​the​ ​bottles​ ​can​ ​be​ ​safely​ ​incinerated​ ​without​ ​the​ ​emission​ ​of​ ​toxic​ ​gases,​ ​unlike​ ​conventional​ ​plastic.​ ​Upon​​incineration,​​the​​primary​​by-products​ ​are​ ​stated​ ​to​ ​be​ ​water​ ​vapour​ ​and​ ​carbon​ ​dioxide,​ ​without​ ​the​ ​release​ ​of​ ​harmful​ ​substances​ ​such​ ​as​ ​chlorine,​ ​dioxins,​ ​or​ ​heavy​ ​metal​ ​fumes,​ ​thereby​ ​making​ ​the​ ​process​​environmentally​​safer​​for​​both​​air​​and​​land.​​The​​petitioner​​also​​asserts​​that​ ​even​ ​in​ ​the​ ​event​ ​of​ ​accidental​ ​consumption​​by​​animals,​​the​​plant-based​​nature​​of​ ​the product ensures that no harm would be caused.​ ​6.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​further​ ​emphasises​ ​that,​ ​in​ ​the​ ​absence​ ​of​ ​adequate​ ​availability​ ​of​ ​safe​ ​drinking​ ​water​ ​bottles​ ​at​ ​Sabarimala​ ​and​ ​along​ ​the​ ​trekking​ ​routes,​​the​​introduction​​of​​biodegradable​​water​​and​​juice​​bottles​​would​​significantly​ ​benefit​ ​the​ ​pilgrims.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​such​ ​an​ ​initiative​ ​would​ ​serve​ ​as​ ​an​ ​environmentally​ ​sustainable​ ​solution​ ​while​ ​also​ ​addressing​ ​the​ ​practical​ ​needs​ ​of​ ​Ayyappa devotees.​ ​7.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​further​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​are​ ​unlawfully​ ​restraining​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​from​ ​carrying​ ​on​ ​its​ ​lawful​ ​trade​ ​and​ ​profession,​ ​thereby​ ​infringing​​the​​fundamental​​rights​​guaranteed​​under​​Article​​19(1)(g)​​read​​with​​Article​ ​21 of the Constitution of India.​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​9​ ​Counter Affidavits Filed By Respondents:​ ​8.​ ​The​ ​Forest​ ​Department​ ​has​ ​filed​ ​two​ ​counter​ ​affidavits.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​counter​ ​filed​​by​​the​​Chief​​Conservator​​of​​Forests​​(Wildlife)​​and​​Field​​Director,​​Kottayam,​​and​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Technical​ ​Assistant​ ​and​ ​Assistant​ ​Conservator​ ​of​ ​Forests,​ ​Southern​ ​Circle,​ ​Kollam​​they​​have​​refuted​​the​​contentions​​advanced​​by​​the​​petitioner.​​It​​is​​contended​ ​that​​the​​introduction​​of​​any​​form​​of​​bottles,​​whether​​claimed​​to​​be​​biodegradable​​or​ ​otherwise,​​poses​​a​​serious​​threat​​to​​wildlife​​in​​and​​around​​the​​ecologically​​sensitive​ ​Sabarimala​ ​forest​ ​region.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Forest​ ​Department,​ ​such​ ​materials​ ​are​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​accumulate​ ​in​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​areas​ ​due​ ​to​ ​improper​ ​disposal​ ​and​ ​may​ ​be​ ​consumed​​by​​wild​​animals,​​thereby​​endangering​​their​​lives.​​It​​is​​specifically​​asserted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​risk​ ​persists​ ​irrespective​ ​of​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​material​ ​is​ ​degradable​ ​or​ ​non-degradable,​​and​​that​​permitting​​distribution​​would​​inevitably​​lead​​to​​an​​increase​ ​in​​solid​​waste​​within​​forest​​limits,​​with​​adverse​​ecological​​consequences.​​The​​Forest​ ​Department​ ​has​ ​also​ ​disputed​ ​the​ ​validity​ ​and​ ​reliability​ ​of​ ​the​ ​certifications​ ​produced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​petitioner.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​the​ ​documents​ ​relied​ ​upon​ ​are​ ​largely​ ​reports​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​private​ ​laboratories​ ​and​ ​do​ ​not​ ​constitute​ ​certifications​ ​from​ ​competent​ ​statutory​ ​or​ ​government​ ​authorities.​ ​The​ ​Department​ ​further​ ​contends​​that​​the​​technology​​claimed​​by​​the​​petitioner,​​along​​with​​its​​environmental​ ​safety​ ​and​ ​sustainability,​ ​has​ ​not​ ​yet​ ​been​ ​conclusively​ ​established​ ​through​ ​recognised​ ​governmental​ ​validation.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​pointed​ ​out​ ​that​ ​Exhibits​ ​P9​ ​and​​P11​​are​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​10​ ​test​ ​reports​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​private​ ​entities​ ​and,​ ​therefore,​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​treated​ ​as​ ​authoritative or sufficient to establish compliance with environmental standards.​ ​9.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​counter​ ​affidavit​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Central​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Board​ ​it​​is​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​polylactic​ ​acid​ ​(PLA),​ ​which​ ​forms​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​petitioner's​ ​product,​ ​falls​ ​within​ ​the​ ​category​ ​of​ ​"compostable​ ​plastic"​ ​under​ ​Rule​ ​3(e)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Plastic​ ​Waste​ ​Management​ ​Rules,​ ​2016,​​and​​not​​"biodegradable​​plastic"​​as​​defined​ ​under​ ​Rule​ ​3(ac).​ ​It​ ​is​ ​emphasised​ ​that​ ​these​ ​are​​distinct​​statutory​​categories​​and​ ​cannot​​be​​used​​interchangeably​​to​​claim​​environmental​​compliance.​​All​​compostable​ ​plastics​​are​​to​​conform​​to​​Indian​​Standard​​IS/ISO​​17088:2021​​titles​​as​​Specifications​ ​of​​Compostable​​Plastics​​as​​per​​Rule​​4​​(h)​​of​​the​​PWM​​Rules​​and​​the​​manufacturer​​or​ ​seller​ ​of​ ​compostable​ ​Plastics​ ​are​​required​​to​​obtain​​a​​certificate​​from​​CPCB​​before​ ​marketing​ ​or​ ​selling​ ​as​ ​per​ ​Rule​ ​4​ ​(ha)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​PWM​ ​Rules​ ​as​ ​amended.​ ​No​ ​such​ ​certification​ ​has​ ​been​ ​obtained​ ​by​ ​Swami​ ​Saranam​ ​Enterprises​ ​for​ ​the​ ​products​ ​in​ ​question.​ ​The​ ​CPCB​ ​has​ ​prepared​ ​the​ ​standard​ ​Operating​ ​Procedure​ ​(SOP)​ ​for​ ​issuing​ ​certificates​ ​to​ ​manufacturers/​ ​sellers​ ​of​ ​compostable​ ​plastic​​carry​​bags​​and​ ​commodities.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​further​ ​contended​ ​that​​compostable​​plastics​​such​​as​​PLA​​can​​be​ ​converted​ ​into​ ​compost​ ​only​​under​​controlled​​industrial​​composting​​conditions,​​and​ ​not​ ​in​ ​open​ ​or​ ​natural​ ​environments.​ ​In​ ​such​ ​uncontrolled​ ​settings,​ ​the​ ​material​ ​does​ ​not​ ​readily​ ​decompose​ ​and​ ​instead​ ​contributes​ ​to​ ​environmental​ ​litter.​ ​The​ ​CPCB​ ​also​ ​points​ ​out​ ​that​ ​the​ ​certificate​ ​relied​ ​upon​ ​by​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​(Exhibit​ ​P4)​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​to​ ​Green​ ​Dot​ ​Biopak​​only​​for​​the​​manufacture​​and​​sale​​of​​compostable​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​11​ ​plastic​​packaging​​film​​and​​carry​​bags,​​and​​not​​for​​bottle​​preforms​​or​​finished​​bottles​ ​as​ ​is​ ​evident​ ​from​ ​the​ ​process​ ​flow​ ​diagram.​ ​Additionally,​ ​it​ ​is​​highlighted​​that​​the​ ​raw​ ​material​ ​used​ ​by​ ​Green​ ​Dot​ ​Biopak​ ​includes​ ​not​ ​only​ ​PLA​ ​but​ ​also​ ​PBAT​ ​(Polybutylene​ ​Adipate​ ​Terephthalate),​ ​which​ ​is​ ​a​ ​petrochemical-based​ ​polymer,​ ​thereby​ ​negating​ ​the​ ​claim​ ​that​ ​the​ ​final​ ​product​ ​is​ ​entirely​ ​plant-based.It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​pointed​ ​out​ ​that​ ​the​ ​2024​ ​amendment​ ​to​ ​the​ ​PWM​ ​Rules​ ​permits​ ​the​ ​use​ ​of​ ​compostable​ ​plastics​ ​only​ ​for​ ​specified​ ​items​ ​such​​as​​plates,​​cups,​​glasses,​​cutlery,​ ​straws,​ ​trays,​ ​wrapping​ ​films,​ ​invitation​ ​cards,​ ​cigarette​ ​packets,​ ​banners,​ ​and​ ​stirrers,​​and​​that​​beverage​​bottles​​do​​not​​fall​​within​​the​​permissible​​category.​​Lastly,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​certifications​ ​relied​ ​upon​ ​by​ ​the​ ​petitioner,​ ​including​ ​DIN​ ​CERTCO​ ​(EU​ ​standards),​ ​CIPET​ ​reports,​ ​and​ ​HEXIQON​ ​laboratory​ ​reports,​ ​are​ ​not​ ​recognised​ ​under​ ​Schedule​ ​I​ ​of​ ​the​ ​PWM​ ​Rules​ ​as​ ​valid​ ​certifications​ ​for​ ​compostable​ ​plastics,​ ​and​ ​therefore​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​relied​ ​upon​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​statutory​ ​compliance.​ ​10.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​counter​ ​affidavit​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Kerala​​State​​Pollution​​Control​​Board​ ​(KSPCB)​​it​​is​​stated​​that​​Notification​​No.​​KSPCB/1572/2025-SEE-1​​dated​​07.11.2025​ ​has​ ​been​ ​issued​ ​imposing​ ​a​ ​ban​ ​on​ ​plastic​ ​items,​ ​including​ ​PET​ ​bottles​ ​and​ ​even​ ​glass​​bottles,​​at​​Nilakkal,​​Pamba,​​and​​Sabarimala​​during​​the​​pilgrimage​​season,​​and​ ​that​ ​the​ ​said​ ​notification​ ​continues​ ​to​ ​remain​ ​in​ ​force.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​pointed​ ​out​ ​that​ ​there​​are​​no​​industrial​​composting​​facilities​​presently​​available​​in​​the​​State​​of​​Kerala​ ​for​ ​the​​effective​​disposal​​of​​compostable​​plastics,​​thereby​​rendering​​the​​petitioner's​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​12​ ​claim​​of​​environmentally​​safe​​composting​​impractical​​and​​unworkable​​in​​the​​existing​ ​infrastructural​​context.​​Further,​​it​​is​​contended​​that​​the​​petitioner​​has​​not​​produced​ ​any​ ​certification​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Central​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Board​ ​in​ ​respect​ ​of​ ​the​ ​manufacture​ ​of​ ​compostable​ ​bottles​ ​either​ ​in​ ​the​ ​name​ ​of​ ​Swami​ ​Saranam​ ​Enterprises​ ​or​ ​under​ ​the​ ​brand​ ​name​ ​"Bio​ ​Theertham,"​ ​as​ ​mandated​ ​under​ ​the​ ​applicable​ ​rules.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​reiterated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​certifications​ ​relied​ ​upon​ ​by​ ​the​ ​petitioner,​​including​​those​​issued​​by​​DIN​​CERTCO,​​CIPET,​​and​​HEXIQON​​laboratories,​ ​are​​not​​recognised​​under​​the​​Plastic​​Waste​​Management​​Rules​​as​​valid​​or​​approved​ ​certifications​ ​for​ ​compostable​ ​materials,​ ​and​ ​therefore​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​treated​ ​as​ ​sufficient compliance with the statutory requirements.​ ​11.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​counter​ ​affidavit​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Travancore​ ​Devaswom​ ​Board​ ​it​ ​is​ ​contended​​that​​the​​allotment​​of​​shops​​at​​Sabarimala​​is​​governed​​strictly​​by​​a​​public​ ​tender​​process,​​and​​that​​no​​private​​entity​​can​​claim,​​as​​a​​matter​​of​​right,​​permission​ ​to​ ​sell​ ​goods​ ​at​ ​the​ ​pilgrimage​ ​sites​ ​without​​participating​​in​​the​​established​​tender​ ​mechanism.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​emphasised​ ​that​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​has​ ​no​ ​statutory​ ​entitlement​ ​or​ ​enforceable​​legal​​right​​to​​seek​​such​​permission​​dehors​​the​​tender​​process.​​It​​is​​also​ ​pointed​ ​out​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Travancore​ ​Devaswom​ ​Board​ ​(TDB)​ ​does​ ​not​ ​have​ ​any​ ​statutory​​authority​​to​​certify​​or​​declare​​the​​environmental​​safety​​of​​any​​product,​​as​ ​such​ ​matters​ ​fall​ ​exclusively​ ​within​ ​the​ ​domain​ ​of​ ​competent​ ​environmental​ ​and​ ​food​ ​safety​ ​regulatory​ ​authorities.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​adequate​ ​alternative​ ​arrangements​ ​have​ ​already​ ​been​ ​put​ ​in​ ​place​ ​to​ ​cater​ ​to​ ​the​ ​needs​ ​of​ ​devotees,​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​13​ ​including​​the​​provision​​of​​free​​drinking​​water​​through​​kiosks​​and​​medicated​​drinking​ ​water​ ​points,​ ​all​ ​of​ ​which​ ​operate​ ​efficiently​ ​without​ ​the​ ​use​ ​of​ ​plastic​ ​or​ ​similar​ ​materials.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​contended​​that​​the​​petitioner​​has​​not​​independently​​verified​​or​ ​established​ ​the​ ​safety​ ​and​ ​compliance​ ​of​ ​either​ ​the​ ​raw​ ​materials​ ​or​ ​the​ ​finished​ ​products.​ ​Submissions Heard:​ ​12.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​heard​ ​the​ ​submissions​ ​of​ ​Sri​ ​Ramesh​ ​Chander,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​as​ ​instructed​ ​by​​Sri​​Bejoy​​Joseph,​​Sri​​M.​​Ajay,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​CPCB,​ ​Sri​ ​T.​ ​Naveen,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​KSPCB,​ ​Sri​ ​Biju,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Standing​ ​Counsel​ ​appearing​​for​​the​ ​Travancore Devaswom Board, and Sri Rajmohan, the learned Government Pleader.​ ​The Ecological And Legal Significance Of Sabarimala:​ ​13.​ ​Before​ ​we​ ​consider​ ​the​ ​legitimacy​ ​of​ ​the​ ​claim​ ​advanced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​petitioners​ ​that​ ​the​ ​PLA​ ​bottle​ ​manufactured​ ​by​ ​them​ ​are​ ​100​ ​%​ ​plant​ ​based,​ ​biodegradable​​and​​compostable​​and​​that​​it​​will​​not​​result​​in​​any​​harm​​to​​the​​animals​ ​of​​the​​periyar​​tiger​​reserve​​or​​to​​the​​environment​​even​​if​​it​​is​​left​​as​​such,​​it​​would​ ​be​ ​apposite​ ​to​ ​understand​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​of​ ​the​ ​sacred​ ​area​ ​where​ ​the​ ​Sabarimala​ ​Temple​​is​​situated.​​The​​adjudication​​of​​the​​issues​​raised​​in​​this​​writ​​petition​​requires​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​to​ ​navigate​ ​a​ ​confluence​ ​of​ ​regulatory,​ ​scientific,​ ​constitutional,​ ​and​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​14​ ​ecological​​questions,​​each​​of​​which​​bears​​upon​​the​​other​​and​​none​​of​​which​​can​​be​ ​considered in isolation.​ ​14.​ ​The​​Sabarimala​​Sannidhanam,​​the​​sacred​​abode​​of​​Lord​​Ayyappa,​​sits​​at​ ​an​​altitude​​of​​approximately​​914​​metres​​above​​sea​​level,​​nestled​​within​​the​​folds​​of​ ​the​ ​Western​ ​Ghats​ ​mountain​ ​range​ ​in​ ​Pathanamthitta​ ​district,​​Kerala.​​The​​Western​ ​Ghats​ ​--​ ​stretching​ ​over​ ​1,600​ ​kilometres​ ​along​ ​the​ ​western​ ​edge​ ​of​ ​peninsular​ ​India​ ​--​ ​is​ ​recognised​ ​by​ ​the​ ​United​ ​Nations​ ​Educational,​ ​Scientific​ ​and​ ​Cultural​ ​Organisation​ ​(UNESCO)​ ​as​ ​a​ ​World​ ​Heritage​ ​Site.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​identified​ ​by​ ​Conservation​ ​International​ ​as​ ​one​​of​​the​​eight​​globally​​recognised​​hotspots​​of​​biological​​diversity​ ​--​ ​among​ ​the​ ​world's​ ​ten​ ​most​ ​species-rich​ ​and​ ​most​ ​threatened​ ​terrestrial​ ​ecosystems.​​Every​​species,​​every​​river,​​every​​hectare​​of​​forest​​within​​this​​landscape​ ​represents​ ​millions​ ​of​ ​years​ ​of​ ​evolution.​ ​Once​ ​lost,​ ​none​ ​of​ ​it​ ​can​​be​​restored.​​In​ ​short,​ ​Sabarimala​ ​is​ ​situated​ ​in​ ​one​​of​​the​​most​​ecologically​​fragile​​and​​biologically​ ​irreplaceable​​landscapes​​on​​earth.​​In​​view​​of​​the​​above​​significance,​​the​​contentions​ ​forcefully​ ​advanced​ ​by​ ​the​​learned​​Senior​​Counsel​​cannot​​be​​regarded​​as​​a​​routine​ ​dispute​ ​about​ ​commercial​ ​licences​ ​or​ ​trade​ ​rights.​ ​The​ ​prayer,​ ​essentially,​ ​is​ ​to​ ​permit​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​to​ ​introduce​ ​millions​ ​of​ ​synthetic​ ​polymer​ ​containers​​into​​the​ ​heart​ ​of​ ​one​ ​of​ ​earth's​ ​most​ ​irreplaceable​ ​biological​ ​treasures.​ ​The​ ​stakes​ ​are​ ​permanent and the harm, if it occurs, is irreversible.​ ​15.​ ​Another​​aspect​​of​​utmost​​significance​​is​​that​​the​​temple​​is​​situated​​within​ ​the​ ​Periyar​ ​Tiger​ ​Reserve.​ ​The​ ​Periyar​ ​Tiger​ ​Reserve​ ​is​ ​not​ ​merely​​a​​forest.​​It​​is​​a​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​15​ ​Critical​​Tiger​​Habitat​​(CTH)​​--​​a​​designation​​made​​under​​Section​​38V​​of​​the​​Wildlife​ ​(Protection)​​Act,​​1972.​​Section​​38V(4)​​of​​the​​Wildlife​​Protection​​Act​​provides​​that​​no​ ​person​​shall​​destroy,​​exploit,​​or​​remove​​any​​wildlife​​including​​forest​​produce​​from​​a​ ​Critical​ ​Tiger​​Habitat,​​or​​destroy,​​damage,​​or​​divert​​the​​habitat​​for​​any​​purpose​​not​ ​consistent​​with​​the​​objectives​​of​​conservation.​​The​​legal​​burden​​under​​this​​provision​ ​is​​uniquely​​reversed​​--​​unlike​​most​​civil​​and​​regulatory​​proceedings​​where​​the​​State​ ​must​ ​establish​ ​harm,​ ​here​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​must​ ​affirmatively​ ​demonstrate​ ​that​ ​its​ ​proposed​ ​activity​ ​is​ ​consistent​ ​with​ ​conservation​ ​objectives.​ ​The​ ​Forest​ ​(Conservation)​ ​Act,​ ​1980​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Kerala​ ​Forest​ ​Act,​ ​1961​ ​further​ ​apply​ ​to​ ​the​ ​reserved​ ​and​ ​protected​ ​forest​ ​land​ ​upon​ ​which​ ​Sannidhanam​ ​stands.​ ​Any​ ​activity​ ​within​ ​reserved​ ​or​ ​protected​ ​forest​ ​that​ ​is​ ​not​ ​specifically​ ​authorised​ ​by​ ​the​ ​competent forest authority is, by operation of law, prohibited.​ ​16.​ ​Over​​and​​above​​all​​these​​factors,​​Exhibit​​R8(a)--the​​notification​​issued​​by​ ​the​ ​Kerala​ ​State​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Board​ ​dated​ ​07.11.2025--clearly​​reveals​​that​​the​ ​Western​ ​Ghats​ ​Ecology​ ​Expert​ ​Panel,​ ​constituted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​of​ ​India,​​has​ ​classified​ ​Sabarimala​ ​and​ ​its​ ​surrounding​ ​areas​ ​as​ ​an​ ​Ecologically​ ​Sensitive​ ​Area​ ​(ESA).​ ​The​ ​designation​ ​of​ ​an​ ​area​ ​as​ ​an​ ​ESA​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Environment​ ​(Protection)​ ​Act,​ ​1986​ ​attracts​ ​the​ ​highest​ ​standard​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​protection​ ​recognised​ ​under​​our​​legal​​framework.​​Such​​classification​​is​​not​​merely​​declaratory​​in​​nature;​​it​ ​serves​ ​as​ ​a​ ​clear​ ​and​ ​unequivocal​ ​signal​ ​to​ ​all​ ​authorities--administrative,​ ​judicial,​ ​and​ ​regulatory--that​ ​the​​region​​demands​​the​​most​​stringent​​and​​vigilant​​protective​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​16​ ​measures.​​In​​the​​present​​case,​​the​​Temple​​is​​situated​​in​​a​​region​​that​​is,​​at​​once,​​a​ ​Critical​ ​Tiger​ ​Habitat,​ ​a​ ​Protected​ ​Area,​ ​a​ ​Reserved​ ​Forest,​ ​and​ ​an​ ​Ecologically​ ​Sensitive​ ​Area.​ ​This​ ​layered​ ​protection​ ​underscores​ ​the​ ​ecological​ ​fragility​ ​of​ ​the​ ​region​ ​and​ ​elevates​ ​the​ ​threshold​ ​of​ ​permissible​ ​activity​ ​to​ ​the​ ​highest​ ​level​ ​of​ ​scrutiny.​ ​In​ ​this​ ​backdrop,​ ​the​ ​Precautionary​​Principle,​​as​​authoritatively​​articulated​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​of​ ​India​ ​in​ ​Vellore​ ​Citizens​ ​Welfare​​Forum​​v.​​Union​​of​ ​India​​1​ ​and​ ​consistently​ ​reaffirmed​ ​in​ ​subsequent​ ​environmental​ ​jurisprudence,​ ​squarely​ ​applies.​ ​The​ ​principle​ ​mandates​ ​that​ ​where​ ​there​ ​exists​​credible​​scientific​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​potential​ ​serious​ ​or​ ​irreversible​ ​environmental​ ​harm,​ ​the​ ​absence​ ​of​ ​complete​ ​scientific​ ​certainty​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​a​ ​ground​ ​to​ ​defer​ ​or​ ​dilute​ ​preventive​ ​measures. In​​Vellore​​(supra), it was observed as under:​ ​"13.​ ​The​ ​Precautionary​ ​Principle​ ​and​ ​the​​Polluter​​Pays​​Principle​ ​have​ ​been​​accepted​​as​​part​​of​​the​​law​​of​​the​​land.​​Article​​21​​of​​the​ ​Constitution​ ​of​ ​India​ ​guarantees​ ​protection​ ​of​ ​life​ ​and​ ​personal​ ​liberty.​ ​Articles​ ​47,​ ​48-A​ ​and​ ​51-A(g)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Constitution​ ​are​ ​as​ ​under:​ ​"47.​ ​Duty​ ​of​ ​the​ ​State​ ​to​ ​raise​ ​the​ ​level​ ​of​ ​nutrition​ ​and​ ​the​ ​standard​ ​of​ ​living​ ​and​ ​to​ ​improve​ ​public​ ​health.--The​ ​State​ ​shall​ ​regard​​the​​raising​​of​​the​​level​​of​​nutrition​​and​​the​​standard​​of​​living​ ​of​ ​its​ ​people​ ​and​ ​the​ ​improvement​ ​of​ ​public​ ​health​ ​as​ ​among​ ​its​ ​primary​ ​duties​ ​and,​ ​in​ ​particular,​ ​the​​State​​shall​​endeavour​​to​​bring​ ​about​ ​prohibition​ ​of​ ​the​ ​consumption​​except​​for​​medicinal​​purposes​ ​of​ ​intoxicating​ ​drinks​ ​and​ ​of​ ​drugs​ ​which​ ​are​ ​injurious​ ​to​ ​health.​ ​1​ ​1996 (5) SCC 647​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​17​ ​48-A.​ ​Protection​​and​​improvement​​of​​environment​​and​​safeguarding​ ​of​ ​forests​ ​and​ ​wildlife.--The​ ​State​ ​shall​ ​endeavour​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​and​ ​improve​​the​​environment​​and​​to​​safeguard​​the​​forests​​and​​wildlife​​of​ ​the​ ​country.​ ​51-A.​ ​(g)​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​and​ ​improve​ ​the​ ​natural​ ​environment​​including​​forests,​​lakes,​​rivers​​and​​wildlife,​​and​​to​​have​ ​compassion​ ​for​ ​living​ ​creatures."​ ​Apart​ ​from​ ​the​ ​constitutional​ ​mandate​​to​​protect​​and​​improve​​the​​environment​​there​​are​​plenty​​of​ ​post-independence​ ​legislations​ ​on​ ​the​ ​subject​ ​but​ ​more​ ​relevant​ ​enactments​ ​for​ ​our​ ​purpose​ ​are:​​the​​Water​​(Prevention​​and​​Control​ ​of​ ​Pollution)​ ​Act,​ ​1974​ ​(the​ ​Water​ ​Act),​ ​the​ ​Air​ ​(Prevention​ ​and​ ​Control​ ​of​ ​Pollution)​ ​Act,​ ​1981​ ​(the​ ​Air​ ​Act)​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Environment​ ​(Protection)​ ​Act,​ ​1986​ ​(the​ ​Environment​ ​Act).​ ​The​ ​Water​ ​Act​ ​provides​​for​​the​​constitution​​of​​the​​Central​​Pollution​​Control​​Board​​by​ ​the​ ​Central​ ​Government​ ​and​ ​the​ ​constitution​ ​of​ ​the​ ​State​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Boards​ ​by​ ​various​ ​State​ ​Governments​ ​in​ ​the​ ​country.​ ​The​ ​Boards​ ​function​ ​under​ ​the​ ​control​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Governments​ ​concerned.​ ​The​​Water​​Act​​prohibits​​the​​use​​of​​streams​​and​​wells​​for​​disposal​​of​ ​polluting​ ​matters.​ ​It​ ​also​ ​provides​ ​for​ ​restrictions​ ​on​ ​outlets​ ​and​ ​discharge​ ​of​ ​effluents​ ​without​ ​obtaining​ ​consent​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Board.​ ​Prosecution​ ​and​ ​penalties​ ​have​ ​been​ ​provided​ ​which​ ​include​ ​sentence​ ​of​ ​imprisonment.​ ​The​ ​Air​ ​Act​ ​provides​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Central​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Board​ ​and​ ​the​ ​State​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Boards​ ​constituted​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Water​ ​Act​ ​shall​ ​also​ ​perform​ ​the​​powers​​and​ ​functions​ ​under​​the​​Air​​Act.​​The​​main​​function​​of​​the​​Boards,​​under​ ​the​​Air​​Act,​​is​​to​​improve​​the​​quality​​of​​the​​air​​and​​to​​prevent,​​control​ ​and​ ​abate​ ​air​ ​pollution​ ​in​ ​the​ ​country.​ ​We​ ​shall​ ​deal​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Environment Act in the latter part of this judgment.​ ​14.​​In​​view​​of​​the​​above-mentioned​​constitutional​​and​​statutory​ ​provisions​ ​we​ ​have​ ​no​ ​hesitation​ ​in​ ​holding​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Precautionary​ ​Principle​​and​​the​​Polluter​​Pays​​Principle​​are​​part​​of​​the​​environmental​ ​law of the country.​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​18​ ​Consequently,​ ​the​ ​burden​ ​shifts​ ​entirely,​ ​and​ ​without​ ​qualification,​ ​onto​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​to​​affirmatively​​demonstrate​​that​​the​​proposed​​activity​​is​​environmentally​ ​benign and will not result in any form of ecological harm.​ ​17.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​to​ ​be​ ​noted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Periyar​ ​Tiger​ ​Reserve​ ​hosts​ ​a​ ​significant​ ​population​ ​of​ ​apex​ ​predators,​ ​including​ ​approximately​ ​35​ ​to​ ​40​ ​tigers,​ ​and​ ​is​ ​recognised​​as​​supporting​​the​​largest​​population​​of​​Asian​​elephants​​within​​any​​single​ ​Protected​ ​Area​ ​in​ ​India.​ ​The​ ​reserve​ ​is​ ​home​ ​to​ ​a​ ​wide​ ​range​ ​of​ ​ecologically​ ​important​ ​species,​ ​including​ ​leopards,​ ​dholes​ ​(wild​ ​dogs),​ ​gaur​ ​(Indian​ ​bison),​ ​sambar​​deer,​​spotted​​deer,​​wild​​boar,​​Nilgiri​​tahr,​​lion-tailed​​macaques,​​Malabar​​giant​ ​squirrels,​ ​and​​the​​critically​​endangered​​Nilgiri​​langur.​​The​​forest​​canopy​​sustains​​an​ ​extraordinary​ ​avian​ ​diversity,​ ​with​​over​​260​​species​​of​​birds​​recorded​​in​​the​​region,​ ​including​ ​the​ ​great​ ​hornbill,​ ​Indian​ ​peafowl,​ ​Malabar​ ​grey​ ​hornbill,​ ​serpent​​eagles,​ ​and​​a​​rich​​variety​​of​​waterbirds​​associated​​with​​the​​Pamba​​river​​system.​​The​​reserve​ ​also​​supports​​important​​reptilian​​fauna,​​including​​king​​cobras​​and​​several​​freshwater​ ​reptile​ ​species​ ​of​ ​conservation​ ​concern.​ ​The​ ​Pamba​ ​River--which​ ​holds​ ​deep​ ​religious​​significance​​as​​the​​river​​at​​whose​​banks​​pilgrims​​bathe​​before​​ascending​​to​ ​Sannidhanam--is​ ​not​ ​merely​ ​a​ ​spiritual​ ​symbol.​ ​It​ ​is​​a​​living​​freshwater​​ecosystem​ ​of​​exceptional​​ecological​​and​​scientific​​importance.​​Originating​​in​​the​​Western​​Ghats​ ​at​ ​an​ ​elevation​ ​of​ ​approximately​​1,650​​metres​​and​​flowing​​through​​the​​core​​of​​the​ ​Periyar​ ​Tiger​ ​Reserve,​ ​the​ ​river​ ​supports​ ​several​ ​endemic​ ​freshwater​ ​fish​ ​species,​ ​including​ ​members​ ​of​ ​the​ ​genus​ ​Puntius,​ ​the​ ​iconic​ ​Tor​ ​tor​ ​mahseer,​ ​and​ ​Labeo​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​19​ ​species,​​many​​of​​which​​are​​listed​​on​​the​​IUCN​​Red​​List​​of​​Threatened​​Species.​​The​ ​river​ ​system​​further​​sustains​​a​​diverse​​assemblage​​of​​aquatic​​and​​semi-aquatic​​life,​ ​including​ ​otters,​ ​freshwater​ ​mussels,​ ​crabs,​ ​and​ ​multiple​ ​species​ ​of​ ​freshwater​ ​turtles,​ ​all​ ​of​ ​which​ ​play​ ​a​ ​vital​ ​role​ ​in​ ​maintaining​ ​ecological​ ​balance.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​relevant​​to​​note​​that​​the​​Periyar​​region​​receives​​an​​annual​​rainfall​​ranging​​between​ ​3,000​ ​and​ ​5,000​ ​millimetres.​ ​In​ ​such​ ​a​ ​high-rainfall​ ​landscape,​ ​any​ ​material​ ​deposited​ ​along​ ​the​ ​riverbanks​ ​or​ ​trekking​ ​pathways​ ​is​ ​inevitably​ ​carried​ ​into​ ​the​ ​river system, thereby directly impacting its ecological integrity.​ ​Issues For Consideration:​ ​18.​ ​With​ ​the​ ​above​ ​background,​ ​we​​shall​​now​​proceed​​to​​consider​​the​​legal​ ​contentions raised by the petitioners.​ ​19.​ ​We​ ​shall​ ​first​ ​examine​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​petitioners'​ ​insistence​ ​upon​ ​selling​ ​and​ ​marketing​ ​"Bio​ ​Theertha"​ ​water​ ​bottles​ ​at​ ​Sabarimala,​​Pamba,​​and​​Nilackal​​is,​ ​as​​they​​claim,​​genuinely​​motivated​​by​​a​​desire​​to​​offer​​an​​eco-friendly​​alternative​​to​ ​the​ ​pilgrims​ ​of​ ​this​ ​sacred​ ​site​ ​or​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​product,​ ​despite​ ​its​ ​biodegradable​ ​credentials,​ ​is​ ​fundamentally​ ​unsuitable​ ​for​ ​use​ ​in​ ​an​ ​ecologically​ ​sensitive​ ​area​​of​ ​this character, regardless of the commercial motivation behind it.​ ​20.​ ​We​ ​shall​ ​thereafter​ ​consider​​the​​specific​​regulatory​​contention​​advanced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​petitioners​ ​that​ ​they​ ​are​ ​not​ ​obliged​ ​to​ ​obtain​ ​any​ ​certificate,​ ​permit,​ ​or​ ​licence​ ​either​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Central​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Board​ ​or​ ​from​ ​the​ ​State​ ​Pollution​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​20​ ​Control​ ​Board,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​burden​ ​of​ ​regulatory​​compliance​​rests​​upon​​the​ ​7th​ ​respondent,​ ​M/s​ ​Green​ ​Dot​ ​Biopak,​ ​as​ ​the​ ​manufacturer​ ​of​ ​the​ ​raw​ ​material.​ ​The​ ​petitioners​ ​contend​ ​that​ ​since​ ​the​ ​7th​ ​respondent​ ​has​ ​already​ ​obtained​ ​a​ ​certificate​ ​from​ ​the​ ​CPCB​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Plastic​ ​Waste​ ​Management​ ​Rules,​ ​2016,​ ​as​ ​amended,​ ​that​ ​certification​ ​enures​ ​to​ ​their​ ​benefit​ ​and​​they​​are​​entitled​​to​​sell​​the​ ​end​ ​product​ ​--​ ​the​ ​"Bio​ ​Theertha"​ ​water​ ​bottle​ ​--​ ​on​ ​the​ ​strength​ ​of​ ​the​ ​7th​ ​respondent's​ ​compliance.​ ​This​ ​contention​ ​raises​ ​fundamental​ ​questions​ ​about​ ​the​ ​architecture​ ​of​ ​the​ ​regulatory​ ​framework​ ​under​ ​the​ ​PWM​ ​Rules​ ​and​ ​the​ ​extent​ ​to​ ​which​ ​a​ ​certification​ ​obtained​ ​by​ ​an​ ​upstream​ ​raw​ ​material​ ​supplier​ ​can​ ​relieve​ ​a​ ​downstream​​brand​​owner​​and​​seller​​of​​its​​independent​​compliance​​obligations​​under​ ​the statute and the rules made thereunder.​ ​21.​ ​We​ ​shall​ ​also​​examine​​the​​significant​​regulatory​​gaps​​that​​emerge​​when​ ​the​​petitioners'​​claim​​is​​tested​​against​​the​​plain​​language​​of​​the​​PWM​​Rules,​​2016​​as​ ​amended,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​standards​ ​prescribed​ ​thereunder.​ ​Essentially​ ​the​ ​contention​ ​advanced​ ​is​ ​that​ ​despite​ ​manufacturing​ ​the​ ​compostable​ ​plastic​ ​bottle​ ​from​ ​raw​ ​material​ ​sourced​ ​from​ ​the​ ​7th​ ​respondent,​ ​and​ ​despite​ ​marketing​ ​and​ ​selling​ ​it​ ​under​​their​​own​​brand​​at​​a​​pilgrimage​​site​​situated​​within​​the​​Periyar​​Tiger​​Reserve,​ ​they​​do​​not​​fall​​within​​the​​definition​​of​​either​​a​​"manufacturer"​​under​​Rule​​3(m)​​or​​a​ ​"producer"​​under​​Rule​​3(l)​​of​​the​​PWM​​Rules.​​This​​contention​​calls​​for​​a​​careful​​and​ ​purposive​​reading​​of​​the​​relevant​​definitions​​in​​the​​light​​of​​the​​scheme​​and​​object​​of​ ​the​ ​Rules,​ ​the​ ​obligations​ ​imposed​ ​by​ ​Rule​ ​4(ha)​ ​upon​ ​persons​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​21​ ​marketing​​or​​selling​​compostable​​plastic​​commodities,​​the​​registration​​requirements​ ​under​​Schedule​​II​​read​​with​​Rule​​10,​​and​​the​​role​​of​​the​​brand​​owner​​as​​recognised​ ​under​ ​the​ ​2024​ ​Amendment​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Rules.​ ​The​ ​resolution​ ​of​ ​this​ ​contention​ ​will​ ​determine​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​regulatory​ ​framework​ ​as​ ​it​ ​presently​ ​stands​ ​permits​ ​the​ ​petitioners​​to​​market​​and​​sell​​the​​"Bio​​Theertha"​​bottle​​without​​obtaining​​their​​own​ ​CPCB​​certification​​--​​and​​if​​it​​does​​not,​​whether​​the​​absence​​of​​such​​certification​​is​​a​ ​curable​ ​procedural​ ​deficiency​ ​or​ ​a​ ​substantive​​disqualification​​that​​goes​​to​​the​​root​ ​of the petition.​ ​22.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​writ​ ​petition,​ ​in​ ​more​ ​than​ ​one​ ​place,​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​the​​bottle​​cap,​​the​​bottle​​pre​​form,​​the​​label​​and​​the​​string​​film​​are​​supplied​​by​​the​ ​7th​ ​respondent​ ​and​ ​they​ ​are​ ​made​ ​using​ ​100%​ ​biodegradable​ ​material​ ​obtained​ ​from​ ​plant​ ​based​ ​materia​​l.​​These​​assertions​​are​​made​​all​​through​​the​​writ​​petition.​ ​Under​ ​no​ ​circumstances​ ​can​ ​the​ ​terms​ ​be​ ​used​ ​interchangeably.​ ​Compostable​​and​ ​biodegradable​ ​plastics​ ​constitute​ ​distinct​ ​legal​ ​categories​ ​under​ ​the​ ​statutory​ ​framework,​ ​each​ ​governed​​by​​separate​​definitions​​and​​certification​​requirements;​​a​ ​product​ ​that​ ​qualifies​ ​as​ ​compostable​ ​cannot,​ ​by​ ​that​ ​very​ ​fact,​ ​be​ ​treated​ ​as​ ​biodegradable,​​nor​​can​​it​​simultaneously​​satisfy​​both​​categories​​without​​independent​ ​compliance​ ​with​​the​​respective​​standards.​​We​​shall​​deal​​with​​this​​issue​​after​​taking​ ​note of the test reports produced by the petitioners.​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​22​ ​Analysis Of The Petitioner's Test Reports And Certifications:​ ​23.​ ​The​ ​test​ ​reports​ ​produced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​petitioners​ ​themselves​ ​will​ ​throw​ ​serious​​doubts​​on​​the​​case​​set​​up​​by​​the​​petitioners​​with​​regard​​to​​biodegradability​ ​and that the bottle is manufactured using 100 % plant based materials.​ ​24.​ ​Ext.P1​ ​is​ ​the​ ​DIN​ ​CERTCO​ ​Certificate​ ​(European​ ​Union),​ ​a​ ​conformity​ ​assessment​​body​​accredited​​under​​the​​German​​Institute​​for​​Standardisation​​(DIN),​ ​widely​​recognised​​in​​the​​European​​Union​​to​​M/s​​Green​​Dot​​Biopak.​​It​​only​​says​​that​ ​the​ ​sample​ ​conforms​ ​to​​European​​Standard​​EN​​13432.​​This​​is​​the​​EU​​specification​ ​for​ ​packaging​ ​recoverable​ ​through​ ​composting​ ​and​ ​biodegradation.​ ​EN​ ​13432​ ​requires​ ​at​ ​least​ ​90%​ ​biodegradation​ ​within​ ​6​ ​months​ ​and​ ​disintegration​ ​to​ ​particles​ ​below​ ​2mm​ ​within​ ​12​ ​weeks,​ ​under​ ​controlled​ ​industrial​ ​composting​ ​conditions.​ ​25.​ ​Ext.P2​ ​is​ ​the​ ​CIPET​ ​Interim​ ​Test​ ​Report​ ​issued​ ​in​ ​respect​ ​of​ ​a​ ​"compostable​​film​​made​​out​​of​​GREENDOT​​compostable​​pellets​​(as​​declared​​by​​the​ ​party),"​​which​​was​​tested​​against​​the​​standard​​ISO​​17088:2012.​​It​​is​​significant​​to​ ​note​ ​that,​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Plastic​ ​Waste​ ​Management​ ​Rules,​ ​the​​applicable​​and​​current​ ​testing​ ​standard​ ​is​ ​IS/ISO​ ​17088:2021.​ ​A​​closer​​reading​​of​​the​​report​​reveals​​that​ ​the​ ​material​​identification​​carried​​out​​through​​FTIR/DSC​​analysis​​confirms​​that​​the​ ​sample​ ​is​ ​not​ ​pure​ ​PLA,​ ​but​ ​a​ ​blend​ ​of​ ​PLA​ ​and​ ​PBAT​ ​(Polybutylene​ ​Adipate​ ​Terephthalate).​​PBAT​​is​​made​​from​​petrochemicals.​​The​​petitioner's​​claim​​that​​their​ ​product​ ​is​ ​"100%​ ​plant-based"​ ​is​ ​therefore​ ​incorrect.​ ​PBAT​ ​being​ ​a​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​23​ ​petrochemical-derived​ ​polymer,​ ​this​ ​finding​ ​directly​ ​undermines​ ​the​ ​petitioner's​ ​claim​ ​that​ ​the​ ​product​ ​is​ ​"100%​ ​plant-based."​ ​Furthermore,​ ​the​ ​tests​ ​have​ ​been​ ​conducted​ ​under​ ​controlled​ ​industrial​ ​composting​ ​conditions​ ​at​ ​a​ ​temperature​ ​of​ ​approximately​ ​58°C,​ ​and​ ​not​ ​under​ ​ambient​ ​or​ ​natural​ ​environmental​ ​conditions.​ ​Finally,​ ​the​ ​report​ ​pertains​ ​only​ ​to​ ​the​ ​raw​ ​material​ ​film​ ​supplied​ ​by​ ​Green​ ​Dot​ ​Biopak​​and​​does​​not​​relate​​to​​the​​bottle​​manufactured​​by​​the​​petitioners​​using​​the​ ​raw materials supplied by the 7th respondent.​ ​26.​ ​Ext.P4​ ​is​ ​the​ ​certificate​​issued​​by​​the​​Central​​Pollution​​Control​​Board​​to​ ​Green​ ​Dot​ ​Biopak.​ ​A​ ​careful​ ​reading​ ​of​ ​the​ ​conditions​ ​therein​ ​would​ ​reveal​ ​that​ ​under​ ​Condition​​(i),​​it​​is​​stipulated​​that​​the​​end​​product​​described​​as​​"compostable​ ​plastics"​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​manufactured​ ​using​ ​the​ ​raw​ ​materials​ ​PLA​ ​and​ ​PBAT,​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​​the​​specified​​production​​process​​detailed​​in​​Annexure​​I.​​However,​ ​a​​perusal​​of​​Annexure​​I​​makes​​it​​evident​​that​​the​​approved​​manufacturing​​process​ ​pertains​​only​​to​​pellet​​manufacture​​and​​the​​production​​of​​packaging​​film​​and​​carry​ ​bags,​ ​and​ ​does​ ​not​ ​extend​ ​to​ ​the​ ​manufacture​ ​of​ ​bottle​ ​preforms​ ​or​ ​finished​ ​bottles.​​This​​clearly​​indicates​​that​​the​​scope​​of​​the​​certification​​is​​limited​​and​​does​ ​not​ ​cover​ ​the​ ​category​ ​of​ ​products​ ​sought​ ​to​ ​be​ ​introduced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​petitioner.​ ​Further,​ ​Condition​ ​(ii)​ ​mandates​ ​that​ ​each​ ​carry​ ​bag​ ​or​ ​commodity​ ​made​ ​from​ ​compostable​​material​​must​​bear​​the​​label​​"COMPOSTABLE​​IS/ISO:17088"​​in​​English​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​in​ ​the​ ​regional​ ​language,​ ​along​ ​with​ ​the​ ​printed​ ​code​ ​and​ ​certificate​ ​number​ ​of​ ​the​ ​manufacturer.​ ​This​ ​requirement​ ​underscores​ ​the​ ​regulatory​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​24​ ​framework​ ​governing​ ​traceability​ ​and​ ​compliance,​ ​and​ ​indicates​ ​that​ ​the​ ​certification​ ​is​ ​product-specific​ ​and​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​strict​ ​conditions,​ ​which​ ​must​ ​be​ ​demonstrably​​satisfied.​​In​​the​​counter​​affidavit​​filed​​by​​the​​Central​​Pollution​​Control​ ​Board​ ​it​ ​is​ ​specifically​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​certificate​ ​dated​ ​09.08.2023​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​to​ ​M/s​ ​Green​ ​Dot​ ​Biopak​ ​only​ ​for​ ​the​ ​manufacture​ ​and​ ​sale​ ​of​ ​compostable​ ​plastic​ ​packaging​​film​​and​​carry​​bags,​​and​​not​​for​​the​​manufacture​​of​​compostable​​plastic​ ​preforms or bottles.​ ​27.​ ​Ext.P12​ ​is​ ​the​ ​CIPET​ ​Test​ ​Report​ ​dated​ ​December​ ​2025,​ ​pertaining​ ​to​ ​the​​petitioner's​​finished​​bottle​​and​​cap,​​and​​constitutes​​a​​material​​identification​​test​ ​conducted​ ​by​ ​a​ ​Government​ ​of​ ​India​ ​laboratory.​ ​A​ ​careful​ ​reading​ ​of​ ​the​ ​report​ ​reveals​​that​​while​​the​​bottle​​body​​is​​made​​of​​PLA,​​the​​bottle​​cap​​contains​​a​​blend​​of​ ​PLA​ ​and​ ​PBAT.​ ​PBAT​ ​(Polybutylene​ ​Adipate-co-Terephthalate)​ ​is​ ​a​ ​petrochemical-based​ ​polymer​ ​synthesised​​from​​substances​​such​​as​​1,4-butanediol,​ ​adipic​ ​acid,​ ​and​ ​terephthalic​ ​acid,​ ​all​ ​of​ ​which​ ​are​ ​derived​ ​from​ ​petroleum.​ ​This​ ​finding​ ​assumes​ ​significant​ ​importance​​for​​multiple​​reasons.​​Firstly,​​it​​corroborates​ ​the​ ​stand​ ​taken​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Central​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​​Board​​in​​its​​counter​​affidavit​​that​ ​Green​​Dot​​Biopak​​utilises​​a​​combination​​of​​PLA​​and​​PBAT​​in​​its​​materials.​​Secondly,​ ​it​​directly​​contradicts​​the​​petitioner's​​consistent​​assertion​​that​​the​​product​​is​​"100%​ ​natural"​ ​and​ ​entirely​ ​plant-based.​ ​Thirdly,​ ​it​ ​undermines​ ​the​​petitioner's​​argument​ ​regarding​ ​animal​ ​safety,​ ​as​ ​the​​bottle​​cap--being​​the​​component​​most​​susceptible​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​25​ ​to​ ​detachment--is​ ​composed​ ​partly​ ​of​ ​a​ ​petrochemical​ ​polymer​ ​and​ ​is​ ​therefore​ ​more likely to pose a risk if ingested by birds or smaller animals.​ ​28.​ ​The​ ​test​ ​reports​ ​produced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​would​ ​only​ ​show​ ​that​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​is​ ​manufacturing​ ​bottles​ ​using​ ​the​ ​raw​ ​materials​ ​supplied​ ​by​ ​the​ ​7th​ ​respondent​ ​and​ ​it​ ​contains​ ​PLA​ ​and​ ​PBAT.​ ​The​ ​end​ ​product​ ​is​​compostable​​under​ ​industrial​ ​conditions​ ​and​ ​the​ ​finished​ ​product​ ​under​ ​no​ ​circumstances​ ​can​ ​be​ ​considered as a biodegradable plastic.​ ​Regulatory​ ​Framework​ ​Under​ ​The​ ​Plastic​ ​Waste​ ​Management​ ​Rules,​ ​2016​ ​29.​ ​We​ ​shall​ ​now​ ​deal​ ​with​ ​the​ ​provisions​ ​under​ ​the​ ​PWM​ ​Rules,​ ​2016​ ​as​ ​amended​ ​to​ ​evaluate​ ​the​ ​contention​ ​of​​the​​petitioners​​that​​despite​​the​​petitioners​ ​selling​ ​the​ ​end​ ​product​ ​they​ ​will​ ​neither​ ​fall​ ​under​ ​the​ ​ambit​ ​of​ ​the​ ​term​ ​manufacturer or seller of the commodity as defined under the Rules.​ ​30.​ ​Rule 3 (e) defines compostable plastics. The same reads as under:​ ​3(e)​ ​"compostable​ ​plastics"​ ​mean​ ​plastic​ ​that​ ​undergoes​ ​degradation​​by​​biological​​processes​​during​​composting​​to​​yield​​CO2,​ ​water,​ ​inorganic​ ​compounds​ ​and​ ​biomass​ ​at​ ​a​ ​rate​ ​consistent​ ​with​ ​other​ ​known​ ​compostable​ ​materials,​ ​excluding​ ​conventional​ ​petro-based​ ​plastics​​,​ ​and​ ​does​ ​not​ ​leave​ ​visible,​ ​distinguishable​ ​or​ ​toxic residue;​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​26​ ​31.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​gone​ ​through​ ​the​ ​website​ ​https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/f6c8f7de-bf7c-4341-8dd8-b2eef7e5​ ​3bed/iso-17088-2021​ ​where​ ​ISO​ ​17088:2021(Main)​ ​specifications​ ​for​​compostable​ ​plastics​ ​are​ ​available.​ ​The​ ​standard​ ​specifies​ ​procedures​ ​and​ ​requirements​ ​for​ ​plastics​ ​and​ ​products​ ​made​ ​from​ ​plastics​ ​that​ ​are​ ​suitable​ ​for​ ​recovery​ ​through​ ​organic​ ​recycling,​ ​addressing​ ​four​ ​aspects:​ ​biodegradation,​ ​disintegration​ ​during​ ​composting,​ ​negative​ ​effects​ ​on​ ​the​ ​composting​ ​process,​ ​and​ ​negative​ ​effects​ ​on​ ​the​ ​quality​ ​of​ ​the​ ​resulting​ ​compost.​ ​The​ ​standard​ ​is​ ​intended​ ​to​ ​be​ ​used​ ​as​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​for​ ​systems​ ​of​ ​labelling​ ​and​ ​claims​ ​for​ ​compostable​ ​plastics​ ​materials​ ​and​ ​products.​ ​It​ ​does​ ​not​ ​provide​​information​​on​​requirements​​for​​the​​biodegradability​ ​of​ ​plastics​ ​which​ ​end​ ​up​ ​in​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​as​ ​litter.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​not​ ​applicable​ ​to​ ​biological​ ​treatment​ ​undertaken​ ​in​ ​small​ ​installations​ ​by​ ​householders.​ ​The​ ​Standard​ ​Operating​ ​Procedure​ ​(SOP)​ ​for​ ​issuing​ ​Certificates​ ​to​ ​Manufacturers/Sellers​ ​of​ ​Compostable​ ​Plastic​ ​Carry​ ​Bags/Products​ ​has​ ​been​ ​brought out by the CPCB as well.​ ​32.​ ​From​ ​the​​publicly​​available​​information​​and​​the​​details​​placed​​before​​us​ ​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​​appearing​​for​​the​​PCB,​​we​​find​​that​​composting​​of​​polylactic​ ​acid​ ​(PLA)​ ​is​ ​a​ ​controlled​ ​biological​ ​process​ ​in​ ​which​ ​microorganisms​ ​break​ ​down​ ​the​ ​material​ ​into​ ​carbon​ ​dioxide,​ ​water,​ ​and​ ​biomass​ ​(humus).​ ​However,​ ​this​ ​process​​does​​not​​occur​​under​​ordinary​​environmental​​conditions.​​It​​requires​​specific​ ​industrial​ ​composting​ ​settings,​ ​without​​which​​PLA​​remains​​largely​​unchanged.​​The​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​27​ ​process​ ​begins​ ​with​ ​thermal​ ​hydrolysis,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​the​ ​critical​ ​stage.​ ​PLA​ ​products​ ​must​ ​be​ ​subjected​ ​to​ ​sustained​ ​temperatures​ ​between​ ​55°C​ ​and​ ​70°C​ ​in​ ​an​ ​industrial​​composting​​facility.​​At​​such​​temperatures,​​water​​molecules​​gain​​sufficient​ ​energy​ ​to​ ​break​ ​the​ ​ester​​bonds​​in​​the​​polymer​​chains,​​gradually​​converting​​them​ ​into​ ​smaller​ ​molecules​ ​and​ ​eventually​ ​into​ ​lactic​ ​acid.​ ​This​ ​stage​ ​typically​ ​takes​ ​between​​30​​to​​45​​days.​​Once​​this​​initial​​breakdown​​is​​achieved,​​the​​process​​moves​ ​to​ ​microbial​​assimilation.​​At​​this​​stage,​​naturally​​occurring​​microorganisms​​such​​as​ ​bacteria​​and​​fungi​​utilise​​the​​lactic​​acid​​as​​a​​source​​of​​energy.​​This​​phase​​proceeds​ ​relatively​​quickly,​​resulting​​in​​the​​production​​of​​carbon​​dioxide,​​water,​​and​​microbial​ ​biomass.​ ​The​ ​final​ ​stage​ ​involves​ ​maturation,​ ​where​ ​the​ ​material​ ​stabilises​ ​into​ ​usable​ ​compost.​ ​Under​ ​ideal​ ​industrial​ ​conditions,​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​process--from​ ​the​ ​original​ ​PLA​ ​product​ ​to​ ​finished​ ​compost--takes​ ​approximately​ ​60​ ​to​ ​90​ ​days,​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​IS/ISO​ ​17088:2021.​ ​In​ ​contrast,​ ​at​ ​ambient​ ​temperatures--such​ ​as​ ​around​ ​25°C,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​typical​ ​in​ ​regions​ ​like​ ​Kerala--the​ ​rate​ ​of​ ​hydrolysis​ ​is​ ​extremely​​slow,​​making​​any​​meaningful​​degradation​​practically​​negligible.​​It​​is​​also​ ​important​​to​​note​​that​​such​​conditions​​are​​not​​achievable​​in​​natural​​environments.​ ​Backyard​​composting,​​open​​soil​​conditions,​​landfills,​​or​​forest​​areas​​do​​not​​maintain​ ​the​ ​required​ ​temperature​ ​levels​ ​for​ ​prolonged​ ​periods.​ ​Without​ ​the​ ​initial​ ​thermal​ ​hydrolysis​ ​stage,​ ​the​ ​subsequent​ ​biological​ ​breakdown​ ​cannot​ ​occur.​ ​As​ ​a​ ​result,​ ​PLA​ ​products​ ​persist​ ​in​ ​the​​environment​​for​​extended​​periods,​​behaving​​much​​like​ ​conventional plastic rather than decomposing as contended by the petitioners.​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​28​ ​33.​ ​Rule​​3(ac)​​of​​the​​PWM​​Rules,​​2016​​defines​​biodegradable​​plastics,​​which​ ​reads as under:​ ​(ac)​ ​"Biodegradable​ ​plastics",​ ​means​ ​plastics,​ ​other​ ​than​ ​compostable​ ​plastics​​,​ ​which​ ​undergoes​ ​degradation​ ​by​ ​biological​ ​processes​ ​in​ ​specific​ ​environment​ ​such​ ​as​ ​soil,​ ​landfill,​ ​sewage​ ​sludge,​ ​fresh​ ​water,​ ​marine,​ ​without​ ​leaving​ ​any​ ​micro​ ​plastics​ ​or​ ​visible​ ​or​ ​distinguishable​ ​or​ ​toxic​ ​residue,​ ​which​ ​has​ ​adverse​ ​environment impact;​ ​34.​ ​It​ ​can​ ​immediately​ ​be​ ​noticed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​opening​ ​words​ ​of​ ​Rule​ ​3(ac)​ ​"plastics,​ ​other​ ​than​ ​compostable​ ​plastics"​ ​would​ ​mean​ ​that​ ​the​​legislature,​ ​while​ ​drafting​ ​the​ ​definition,​ ​deliberately​ ​and​ ​expressly​ ​excluded​ ​compostable​ ​plastics​ ​from​ ​the​ ​biodegradable​ ​plastics​ ​category.​ ​We​ ​are​ ​of​ ​the​ ​view​ ​that​ ​such​ ​exclusion​ ​was​ ​deliberate​ ​since​ ​scientifically​ ​compostable​ ​plastics​ ​(like​ ​PLA)​ ​do​​not​ ​meet​ ​the​ ​standard​ ​of​ ​degrading​ ​in​ ​natural​ ​environments​ ​like​ ​soil,​ ​freshwater,​ ​or​ ​marine settings.​ ​35.​ ​In​ ​its​ ​broadest​ ​scientific​​sense,​​biodegradation​​refers​​to​​the​​breakdown​ ​of​ ​a​ ​material​ ​by​ ​naturally​ ​occurring​ ​microorganisms​ ​such​ ​as​ ​bacteria,​ ​fungi,​ ​and​ ​algae​ ​into​ ​simpler,​ ​natural​ ​compounds.​ ​A​ ​material​ ​that​ ​is​ ​truly​ ​biodegradable​ ​can​ ​degrade​ ​across​ ​a​​wide​​range​​of​​natural​​environmental​​settings​​such​​as​​soil,​​water,​ ​landfills,​​or​​even​​marine​​environments​​without​​the​​need​​for​​specially​​engineered​​or​ ​controlled​​conditions.​​Materials​​like​​wood,​​leaves,​​cotton,​​or​​decompose​​naturally​​in​ ​a​​garden,​​in​​a​​river,​​or​​when​​buried​​in​​the​​earth,​​as​​the​​microorganisms​​required​​for​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​29​ ​their​ ​breakdown​ ​are​ ​abundantly​ ​present​ ​in​ ​nature​ ​and​ ​operate​ ​effectively​ ​at​ ​ambient​ ​temperatures.​ ​Biodegradation​ ​does​ ​not​ ​require​ ​any​ ​form​ ​of​ ​industrial​ ​intervention.​​The​​process​​occurs​​spontaneously​​upon​​exposure​​to​​natural​​microbial​ ​activity,​ ​without​ ​the​ ​necessity​ ​for​ ​specialised​ ​facilities​ ​or​ ​elevated​ ​temperature​ ​regimes.​​Most​​importantly,​​true​​biodegradation​​is​​complete​​in​​nature.​​The​​material​ ​is​ ​fully​ ​assimilated​ ​by​ ​microorganisms,​ ​leaving​​behind​​no​​persistent​​fragments,​​no​ ​microplastic-like​​residues,​​and​​no​​toxic​​by-products.​​The​​end​​result​​is​​the​​formation​ ​of​ ​harmless​ ​natural​ ​substances​ ​such​ ​as​ ​carbon​ ​dioxide,​ ​water,​ ​mineral​ ​salts,​ ​and​ ​biomass.​​Viewed​​in​​the​​above​​scientific​​and​​statutory​​context,​​it​​becomes​​clear​​that​ ​a​ ​product​ ​cannot​ ​simultaneously​ ​satisfy​ ​the​ ​definitions​ ​of​ ​both​ ​"compostable​ ​plastic"​​under​​Rule​​3(e)​​and​​"biodegradable​​plastic"​​under​​Rule​​3(ac)​​of​​the​​Plastic​ ​Waste​ ​Management​ ​Rules.​ ​If​ ​a​ ​product​ ​is​ ​classified​ ​as​ ​compostable,​ ​it​ ​is,​ ​by​ ​definition,​ ​excluded​ ​from​ ​the​ ​category​ ​of​ ​biodegradable​ ​plastics.​ ​The​ ​petitioner,​ ​therefore,​ ​cannot​ ​employ​​both​​expressions​​interchangeably​​in​​respect​​of​​the​​same​ ​product.​ ​By​ ​asserting​ ​that​ ​the​ ​product​ ​is​ ​compostable​ ​under​ ​Rule​ ​3(e),​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​has,​ ​in​ ​effect,​ ​placed​ ​it​ ​outside​ ​the​ ​ambit​ ​of​ ​biodegradable​ ​plastic​ ​as​ ​defined under Rule 3(ac).​ ​36.​ ​One​​of​​the​​contentions​​advanced​​by​​the​​CPCB​​and​​the​​KPCB​​are​​that​​the​ ​petitioner​ ​is​ ​required​ ​to​ ​obtain​ ​certification​ ​issued​ ​by​​the​​Central​​Pollution​​Control​ ​Board​ ​in​ ​respect​ ​of​ ​the​ ​manufacture​ ​of​​compostable​​bottles​​either​​in​​the​​name​​of​ ​Swami​ ​Saranam​ ​Enterprises​ ​or​ ​under​ ​the​ ​brand​ ​name​ ​"Bio​ ​Theertham,"​ ​as​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​30​ ​mandated​ ​under​ ​the​ ​applicable​ ​rules.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​other​ ​hand,​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​they​ ​are​ ​manufacturing​ ​the​ ​bottles​ ​along​ ​with​ ​caps​ ​and​ ​film​ ​using​ ​the​ ​raw​ ​materials​ ​supplied​ ​by​ ​the​ ​7th​ ​respondent​ ​and​ ​as​ ​the​ ​7th​ ​respondent​ ​is​ ​having​ ​a​ ​valid​ ​certification,​​the​​petitioner​​is​​not​​required​​to​​obtain​​the​​same.​​Essentially​​the​ ​contention​ ​is​ ​that​ ​the​ ​petitioners​ ​are​ ​not​ ​'manufacturing'​ ​compostable​ ​plastic​ ​but​ ​only​ ​converting​ ​a​ ​pre-certified​​material​​into​​a​​bottle​​and​​therefore​​the​​certification​ ​obligation​ ​under​ ​Rule​ ​4(ha)​ ​does​ ​not​ ​apply​ ​to​ ​them.​ ​We​ ​are​ ​afraid​ ​that​ ​the​ ​said​ ​contention advanced by the petitioner cannot be accepted.​ ​37.​ ​Rule 3 (b) of the PWM Rules defines a 'brand owner' as follows:​ ​(b)​ ​"brand​ ​owner"​ ​means​ ​a​ ​person​ ​or​ ​company​ ​who​ ​sells​ ​any​ ​commodity under a registered brand label or trademark​ ​38.​ ​Rule 3 (d) of the PWM Rules defines 'commodity' as follows:​ ​(d)​ ​"commodity"​ ​means​ ​tangible​ ​item​ ​that​ ​may​ ​be​ ​bought​ ​or​ ​sold​ ​and includes all marketable goods or wares;​ ​39.​ ​Rule​ ​3​ ​(m)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​PWM​ ​Rules​ ​defines​ ​a​ ​'manufacturer'.​ ​The​ ​said​ ​provision reads as under:​ ​(m)​ ​"manufacturer"​ ​means​ ​and​ ​includes​ ​a​ ​person​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​production​ ​of​ ​plastic​ ​raw​ ​material,​ ​including​ ​compostable​ ​plastics and biodegradable plastics.​ ​40.​ ​Rule​​3​​(o)​​of​​the​​PWM​​Rules​​defines​​a​​'plastic​​'.​​The​​said​​provision​​reads​ ​as under:​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​31​ ​Rule​ ​3​ ​(o)​ ​"plastic"​ ​means​ ​material​ ​which​ ​contains​ ​as​ ​an​ ​essential​ ​ingredient​ ​a​ ​high​ ​polymer​ ​such​ ​as​ ​polyethylene​ ​terephthalate,​ ​high​ ​density​ ​polyethylene,​ ​Vinyl,​ ​low​ ​density​ ​polyethylene,​ ​polypropylene,​ ​polystyrene​ ​resins,​ ​multi-materials​ ​like​ ​acrylonitrile​ ​butadiene​ ​styrene,​ ​polyphenylene​ ​oxide,​​polycarbonate,​ ​Polybutylene terephthalate;​ ​41.​ ​It​​is​​by​​interpreting​​the​​definition​​that​​the​​learned​​counsel​​contends​​that​ ​only​​the​​7th​​respondent​​will​​come​​under​​the​​ambit​​of​​the​​definition​​manufacturer​​as​ ​they​ ​are​ ​the​ ​persons​ ​who​ ​are​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​the​ ​production​ ​of​ ​compostable​ ​plastics.​ ​There​ ​appears​ ​to​ ​be​ ​some​ ​merit​ ​in​ ​the​ ​said​ ​submission.​ ​P.​ ​Kasilingam​ ​And​ ​Others​ ​v.​ ​P.S.G​ ​College​ ​Of​ ​Technology​ ​And​ ​Others​​2​​,​ ​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​had​ ​occasion​ ​to​ ​interpret​ ​the​ ​meaning​ ​of​ ​the​ ​term​ ​"means​ ​and​ ​includes"​ ​by​ ​the​ ​draftsman. The Apex Court held as under:​ ​"A​ ​particular​ ​expression​ ​is​ ​often​ ​defined​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Legislature​​by​​using​ ​the​​word​​'means'​​or​​the​​word​​'includes'.​​Sometimes​​the​​words​​'means​ ​and​ ​includes'​ ​are​ ​used.​ ​The​ ​use​ ​of​ ​the​ ​word​ ​'means'​ ​indicates​ ​that​ ​"definition​​is​​a​​hard-and-fast​​definition,​​and​​no​​other​​meaning​​can​​be​ ​assigned​ ​to​ ​the​ ​expression​ ​than​ ​is​ ​put​ ​down​ ​in​ ​definition".​ ​(See​ ​:​ ​Gough​ ​v.​ ​Gough​ ​(1891)​ ​2​ ​QB​ ​665)​ ​The​ ​word​ ​'includes'​ ​when​ ​used,​ ​enlarges​​the​​meaning​​of​​the​​expression​​defined​​so​​as​​to​​comprehend​ ​not​ ​only​ ​such​​things​​as​​they​​signify​​according​​to​​their​​natural​​import​ ​but​ ​also​ ​those​ ​things​ ​which​ ​the​ ​clause​ ​declares​ ​that​ ​they​ ​shall​ ​include.​​The​​words​​"means​​and​​includes",​​on​​the​​other​​hand,​​indicate​ ​"an​​exhaustive​​explanation​​of​​the​​meaning​​which,​​for​​the​​purposes​​of​ ​2​ ​1995 INSC 211​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​32​ ​the​ ​Act,​ ​must​ ​invariably​ ​be​ ​attached​​to​​these​​words​​or​​expressions".​ ​(See : Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps 1899 AC 99)​ ​42.​ ​As​ ​observed​ ​above​ ​the​ ​words​ ​'means​ ​and​ ​includes"​ ​indicates​ ​an​ ​exhaustive​ ​explanation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​meaning​ ​which​ ​for​ ​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Rule​ ​must​ ​invariably be attached to the above word and expression.​ ​43.​ ​However​ ​reading​ ​Rule​ ​4​ ​gives​ ​a​ ​different​ ​indication.​​The​​said​​provision​ ​provides​ ​for​ ​the​ ​conditions​ ​that​ ​are​ ​to​ ​be​ ​complied​ ​with​ ​for​ ​the​ ​manufacture,​ ​import,​ ​stocking,​ ​distribution,​ ​sale​ ​and​ ​use​ ​of​​carry​​bags,​​plastic​​sheets​​or​​like,​​or​ ​covers​ ​made​ ​of​ ​plastic​ ​sheets​ ​and​ ​plastic​ ​packaging.​ ​The​ ​said​ ​provision​ ​reads​ ​as​ ​under:​ ​4.​ ​Conditions.--​ ​(1)​ ​The​ ​manufacture,​ ​import,​ ​stocking,​ ​distribution,​ ​sale​ ​and​​use​​of​​carry​​bags,​​plastic​​sheets​​or​​like,​​or​​cover​​made​​of​​plastic​ ​sheet​ ​and​ ​plastic​ ​packaging,​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​the​ ​following​ ​conditions, namely:--​ ​(a)​ ​xxxxx;​ ​(b)​ ​xxxxx;​ ​(c)​ ​xxxxx;​ ​(d)​ ​xxxxx;​ ​(e)​ ​the​ ​manufacturer​ ​shall​ ​not​ ​sell​ ​or​ ​provide​​or​​arrange​ ​plastic​ ​to​ ​be​ ​used​ ​as​ ​raw​ ​material​ ​to​ ​a​ ​producer​ ​or​ ​to​ ​a​ ​seller not registered under these rules​​;​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​33​ ​(f)​ ​xxxxx;​ ​(g)​ ​xxxxx;​ ​(h)​ ​the​ ​provision​ ​of​ ​thickness​ ​under​ ​clause​ ​(c)​ ​shall​ ​not​ ​apply​​to​​carry​​bags​​or​​commodities​​made​​from​​compostable​ ​plastic​ ​or​ ​biodegradable​ ​plastics.​ ​Carry​ ​bags​ ​and​ ​commodities​ ​made​ ​from​ ​compostable​ ​plastics​​shall​​conform​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Indian​ ​Standard:​ ​IS/ISO​ ​17088:2021​ ​titled​ ​as​ ​Specifications for Compostable Plastics.​ ​(ha)​ ​the​ ​manufacture​ ​of​ ​carry​ ​bags​ ​and​ ​commodities​ ​covered​ ​under​ ​sub​ ​rule​ ​(3)​ ​shall​ ​be​​permitted​ ​to​ ​be​ ​made​ ​from​ ​compostable​ ​plastics​ ​or​ ​biodegradable​ ​plastics​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​mandatory​ ​marking​ ​and​ ​labelling​ ​laid​ ​down​ ​under​ ​these​ ​rules​ ​and​ ​the​ ​regulations​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Food​ ​Safety​ ​and​ ​Standards​ ​Authority​ ​of​ ​India​ ​for​ ​food​ ​contact​ ​applications.​​The​​manufacturers​​of​​compostable​​plastic​ ​or​ ​biodegradable​ ​plastic​ ​carry​ ​bags​ ​or​ ​commodities​ ​permitted​ ​under​ ​the​ ​rules,​ ​shall​ ​obtain​ ​a​ ​certificate​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Central​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Board​ ​before​ ​marketing or selling;​​]​ ​(i)​ ​xxxxx;​ ​(j)​ ​xxxxx;​ ​(2)​ ​xxxxx;​ ​(a)​ ​xxxxx;​ ​(b)​ ​xxxxx;​ ​(3)​ ​The​ ​provisions​ ​of​ ​sub-rule​ ​(2)​ ​(b)​ ​shall​ ​not​ ​apply​ ​to​ ​commodities made of compostable plastic.​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​34​ ​(3A)​ ​The​ ​manufacturer​ ​of​ ​commodities​ ​made​ ​from​ ​compostable​ ​plastics​ ​or​ ​biodegradable​ ​plastics​ ​shall​ ​report​ ​the​ ​quantity​ ​of​ ​such​ ​commodities​ ​introduced​ ​in​ ​the​ ​market​ ​and​ ​pre-consumer​ ​waste​ ​generated​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Central​​Pollution​ ​Control Board.​ ​(4)​ ​xxxxx;​ ​(5)​ ​xxxxx;​ ​44.​ ​Rule​ ​3​ ​(s)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​PWM​ ​Rules​ ​defines​ ​a​ ​'producer'.​ ​The​ ​said​ ​provision​ ​reads as under:​ ​(s)​ ​''producer"​ ​means​ ​a​ ​person​​engaged​​in​​manufacturing​​of​​plastic​ ​packaging;​ ​and,​ ​includes​ ​a​ ​person​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​manufacture​ ​of​ ​intermediate​ ​material​ ​to​ ​be​ ​used​ ​for​ ​manufacturing​ ​plastic​ ​packaging,​ ​and​ ​also​ ​the​ ​person​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​contract​ ​manufacturing​ ​of​ ​products​ ​using​ ​plastic​ ​packaging​ ​or​ ​through​ ​other​ ​similar​ ​arrangements for a brand owners;​ ​45.​ ​On​ ​a​ ​plain​ ​and​ ​careful​ ​reading​ ​of​ ​the​ ​PWM​ ​Rules,​ ​the​ ​term​ ​"manufacturer"​ ​can​ ​only​ ​be​ ​understood​ ​to​ ​refer​ ​to​ ​the​ ​person​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​the​ ​production​​of​​plastic​​raw​​material.​​In​​that​​sense,​​the​​7th​​respondent,​​which​​produces​ ​PLA/PBAT​​pellets,​​granules,​​preforms,​​and​​films,​​squarely​​falls​​within​​the​​definition​​of​ ​"manufacturer."​​In​​contrast,​​Swami​​Saranam​​Enterprises​​merely​​blow-moulds​​preforms​ ​into​​bottles,​​fills​​them​​with​​water,​​and​​markets​​them​​under​​the​​"Bio​​Theertha"​​brand.​ ​It​​does​​not​​manufacture​​the​​raw​​material;​​it​​only​​converts​​an​​already​​existing​​material​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​35​ ​into​ ​a​ ​finished​ ​consumer​ ​product.​ ​Consequently,​ ​it​ ​may​ ​not​ ​fall​ ​within​ ​the​ ​ambit​ ​of​ ​"manufacturer" as defined under Rule 3(m).​ ​46.​ ​If​ ​such​ ​a​ ​view​ ​is​ ​accepted,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​is​ ​held​ ​not​ ​to​​fall​​within​ ​the​ ​definition​ ​of​ ​"manufacturer,"​ ​the​ ​applicability​ ​of​ ​Rule​ ​4(ha)--which​ ​refers​ ​to​ ​manufacturers​ ​of​ ​compostable​ ​plastic​ ​or​ ​biodegradable​ ​plastic​ ​carry​ ​bags​ ​or​ ​commodities--would,​ ​at​ ​first​ ​glance,​ ​appear​ ​to​ ​be​ ​open​ ​to​ ​doubt.​ ​However,​​a​​closer​ ​and​ ​more​ ​contextual​ ​reading​ ​of​ ​Rule​ ​4(ha)​ ​reveals​ ​the​ ​difficulty​ ​in​ ​applying​ ​the​ ​definition so rigidly.​ ​47.​ ​The​ ​expression​ ​"manufacturers​ ​of​ ​compostable​ ​plastic​ ​carry​ ​bags​ ​or​ ​commodities"​​cannot​​logically​​be​​confined​​to​​production​​of​​raw​​materials​​alone.​​A​​raw​ ​material​​producer​​does​​not​​manufacture​​carry​​bags​​or​​finished​​commodities;​​it​​merely​ ​produces​ ​the​ ​inputs​ ​from​ ​which​ ​such​ ​goods​ ​are​ ​made.​ ​In​ ​ordinary​ ​commercial​ ​understanding,​​a​​"manufacturer​​of​​carry​​bags"​​is​​the​​entity​​that​​actually​​produces​​the​ ​bags​ ​or​ ​commodities--not​ ​the​ ​entity​ ​that​ ​manufactures​ ​the​ ​plastic​ ​resin.​ ​If​ ​the​ ​definition​ ​in​ ​Rule​ ​3(m)​ ​is​ ​applied​ ​without​ ​qualification,​ ​the​ ​phrase​ ​"manufacturer​ ​of​ ​carry​ ​bags​ ​or​ ​commodities"​ ​becomes​ ​internally​ ​inconsistent​ ​and​ ​practically​ ​unworkable.​ ​48.​ ​In​ ​Ramesh​ ​Mehta​ ​v.​ ​Sanwal​ ​Chand​ ​Singhvi​ ​3​,​ ​​the​​Apex​​Court​​has​ ​held that a definition is not to be read in isolation. It was observed as under:​ ​3​ ​(2004) 5 SCC 409​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​36​ ​27.​ ​A​​definition​​is​​not​​to​​be​​read​​in​​isolation.​​It​​must​​be​​read​ ​in​​the​​context​​of​​the​​phrase​​which​​would​​define​​it.​​It​​should​​not​​be​ ​vague​ ​or​ ​ambiguous.​ ​The​ ​definition​ ​of​ ​words​ ​must​ ​be​ ​given​ ​a​ ​meaningful​ ​application;​ ​where​ ​the​ ​context​ ​makes​ ​the​ ​definition​ ​given​ ​in​ ​the​ ​interpretation​ ​clause​ ​inapplicable,​ ​the​ ​same​ ​meaning​ ​cannot be assigned".​ ​49.​ ​In​ ​Bhavnagar​ ​University​ ​v.​ ​Palitana​ ​Sugar​ ​Mill​ ​(P)​ ​Ltd.​ ​And​ ​Others​ ​4​,​ ​​the​​Apex​​Court​​has​​held​​that​​while​​interpreting​​statutory​​provisions​​if​​while​ ​applying​ ​the​ ​definition​ ​it​ ​leads​ ​to​ ​an​ ​absurd,​ ​repugnant,​ ​or​ ​impracticable​ ​result,​ ​the​ ​contextual​ ​meaning​ ​must​ ​prevail.​ ​It​ ​was​ ​held​ ​that​ ​a​ ​definition​ ​should​ ​not​ ​be​​applied​ ​where​ ​it​ ​produces​ ​an​ ​outcome​ ​inconsistent​​with​​the​​scheme​​of​​the​​legislation.​​It​​was​ ​observed as under:​ ​23.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​the​ ​basic​ ​principle​ ​of​ ​construction​ ​of​ ​statute​ ​that​​the​​same​​should​​be​​read​​as​​a​​whole,​​then​​chapter​​by​​chapter,​ ​section​​by​​section​​and​​words​​by​​words.​​Recourse​​to​​construction​​or​ ​interpretation​ ​of​ ​statute​ ​is​ ​necessary​ ​when​ ​there​ ​is​ ​ambiguity,​ ​obscurity,​​or​​inconsistency​​therein​​and​​not​​otherwise.​​An​​effort​​must​ ​be​ ​made​ ​to​ ​give​ ​effect​ ​to​ ​all​ ​parts​ ​of​ ​the​ ​statute​ ​and​ ​unless​ ​absolutely​ ​necessary,​ ​no​ ​part​ ​thereof​ ​shall​​be​​rendered​​surplusage​ ​or redundant.​ ​24.​​True​​meaning​​of​​a​​provision​​of​​law​​has​​to​​be​​determined​ ​on​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​what​ ​it​ ​provides​ ​by​ ​its​ ​clear​ ​language,​ ​with​ ​due​ ​regard to the scheme of law.​ ​4​ ​2002 INSC 505​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​37​ ​25.​ ​Scope​ ​of​ ​the​ ​legislation​ ​on​ ​the​ ​intention​ ​of​ ​the​ ​legislature​​cannot​​be​​enlarged​​when​​the​​language​​of​​the​​provision​​is​ ​plain​ ​and​ ​unambiguous.​​In​​other​​words​​statutory​​enactments​​must​ ​ordinarily​​be​​construed​​according​​to​​its​​plain​​meaning​​and​​no​​words​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​added,​ ​altered​​or​​modified​​unless​​it​​is​​plainly​​necessary​​to​ ​do​ ​so​ ​to​ ​prevent​ ​a​ ​provision​ ​from​ ​being​ ​unintelligible,​ ​absurd,​ ​unreasonable,​ ​unworkable​ ​or​ ​totally​ ​irreconcilable​ ​with​ ​the​ ​rest​ ​of​ ​the statute​​.​ ​26.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​well​ ​settled​ ​that​ ​a​ ​beneficent​ ​provision​ ​of​ ​legislation​ ​must​ ​be​ ​liberally​ ​construed​ ​so​ ​as​ ​to​ ​fulfil​ ​the​ ​statutory​ ​purpose and not to frustrate it.​ ​50.​ ​Applying​ ​these​ ​principles,​ ​the​ ​term​ ​"manufacturer"​ ​in​ ​Rule​ ​4(ha)​ ​must​ ​necessarily​​be​​understood​​in​​a​​broader,​​contextual​​sense​​--​​one​​that​​includes​​entities​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​the​ ​manufacture​ ​of​ ​finished​ ​compostable​ ​plastic​ ​commodities.​ ​To​ ​hold​ ​otherwise​ ​would​ ​lead​ ​to​ ​an​ ​absurd​ ​consequence:​ ​that​ ​only​ ​raw​ ​material​ ​producers​ ​require​ ​CPCB​ ​certification,​ ​while​ ​those​ ​actually​ ​manufacturing​ ​and​ ​selling​ ​the​ ​final​ ​products​ ​escape​ ​regulation.​ ​Such​ ​an​​interpretation​​would​​defeat​​the​​very​​purpose​​of​ ​the​​rule.​​Furthermore,​​Rule​​4(ha)​​is​​not​​confined​​to​​manufacturers​​alone;​​it​​explicitly​ ​mandates​ ​certification​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​"marketing​ ​or​ ​selling."​ ​In​ ​other​ ​words​ ​the​ ​provision​ ​extends​​the​​regulatory​​obligation​​beyond​​production​​to​​the​​act​​of​​placing​​the​​product​ ​in the market.​ ​51.​ ​It​ ​would​ ​be​ ​apposite​ ​at​ ​this​ ​juncture​ ​to​ ​consider​ ​the​ ​regulatory​ ​framework​ ​of​ ​the​ ​CPCB.​ ​The​ ​Standard​ ​Operating​ ​Procedure​ ​(SOP)​ ​for​ ​Issuing​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​38​ ​Certificate​ ​to​ ​Manufacturers/​ ​Sellers​ ​of​ ​Compostable​ ​Plastic​ ​Carry​ ​Bags/​ ​Products​ ​available in the weblink:​ ​https://cpcb.nic.in/openpdffile.php?id=TGF0ZXN0RmlsZS9fMTU5OTcyMjUyNV9tZWRp​ ​YXBob3RvNjgzNi5wZGY%3D​​.​ ​The​ ​Standard​ ​Operating​ ​Procedure​ ​(SOP)​ ​provides​ ​for​ ​separate​ ​certification​ ​pathways--Form​ ​A​ ​for​ ​manufacturers​ ​and​ ​Form​ ​B​ ​for​ ​sellers/stockists--thereby​ ​expressly​ ​recognising​ ​that​ ​downstream​ ​entities​ ​involved​ ​in​ ​the​ ​manufacture,​ ​marketing,​ ​or​ ​sale​ ​of​ ​compostable​ ​plastic​ ​products​ ​must​ ​independently​ ​obtain​ ​certification.​ ​Significantly,​ ​the​ ​SOP​ ​does​ ​not​ ​contemplate​ ​any​ ​form​ ​of​ ​derivative​ ​or​ ​proxy​ ​certification​ ​based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​compliance​ ​of​ ​an​ ​upstream​ ​supplier.​ ​Each​ ​entity​ ​is​ ​required to stand on its own compliance footing.​ ​Guidance for filling Application for Seller​ ​Sl.​ ​Item​ ​Details​ ​ o.​ N ​1​ ​ ame​ ​and​ ​full​ ​address​ N ​ rovide​ ​name​ ​and​ ​address​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Seller,​ ​Selling​ ​unit​ ​along​ ​with​ ​postal​ P ​along​ ​with​ ​telephone​ ​address, telephone numbers, mobile numbers, e-mail id.​ ​numbers,​ ​e-mail​ ​and​ ​other​ ​contact​ ​details​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Seller/Selling unit​ ​-All documents including Undertaking, etc. to include the Selling unit address​ ​Central Pollution Control Board​ ​SOP for issuing Certificate to Compostable Plastic Manufacturers/Sellers​ ​2​ ​Product details​ ​Name of the Product​ ​ uantity​ ​proposed​​to​​be​ Q ​ etails​ D ​of​ ​ ame​ ​and​ ​Address​ ​of​ N ​procured(TPA​ ​Dealers,​ ​manufacturer​ ​for​ ​Stocklists​ ​ nd​ a ​procurement​ ​of​​compostable​ ​Users​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bags​ ​product​ ​A​ ​B​ ​C​ ​C​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​39​

-​ Products​​details​​which​​is​​to​ -​ Proposed​ ​quantity​ ​of​ ​Details​ ​of​ ​ ame​ ​and​ ​address​ ​of​ N ​be marketed.​ ​product​ ​to​ ​be​ ​procured​ ​Dealers,​​stocklists​ ​CPCB​ ​manufacturers​ ​from​ ​CPCB​ ​certified​ ​and​ ​users​ ​of​ ​the​ ​certified​ ​of​ ​compostable​ ​manufacturer.​ ​product.​ ​bags​ ​from​ ​whom​ ​the​ ​seller​ ​propose​ ​to​ ​procure.​ ​- Authorization letter issued to the seller from the concerned manufacturers. (Refer column 2(D))​ ​Registration​​issued​​by​​SPCB/PCC​​to​​concerned​​manufacturer​​as​​per​​Rule​​13(1)​​of​​Plastic​​Waste​​Management,​​2018​ ​for manufacturing of compostable carrybags. (Refer column 2(D) above)​ ​- Undertaking as per format given in Annexure V has to be submitted along with the application​ ​Checklist of documents to be submitted with the application is placed at Annexure VI​ ​52.​ ​Going​​by​​the​​SOP,​​it​​would​​be​​difficult​​to​​hold​​that​​Swami​​Saranam,​​the​ ​1st​​petitioner​​herein,​​will​​not​​fall​​within​​the​​category​​of​​a​​seller.​​These​​are​​regulatory​ ​gaps which are required to be corrected.​ ​53.​ ​SCHEDULE-II​ ​of​ ​the​ ​PWM​ ​Rules​ ​2016​ ​contains​ ​the​ ​guidelines​ ​on​ ​Extended​ ​Producer​ ​Responsibility​ ​for​ ​Plastic​ ​Packaging​ ​and​ ​commodities​ ​made​ ​from​ ​compostable​ ​plastics​ ​or​ ​biodegradable​ ​plastics​ ​independently​ ​requires​ ​all​ ​manufacturers--including​ ​those​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​the​ ​manufacture​ ​of​ ​bottles​ ​and​ ​other​ ​finished​ ​products--to​​obtain​​registration​​with​​the​​SPCB.​​This​​requirement​​operates​​in​ ​addition​ ​to,​ ​and​ ​not​ ​in​ ​substitution​ ​of,​ ​the​ ​CPCB​ ​certification​ ​mandated​ ​under​ ​Rule​ ​4(ha).​​The​​multi-stakeholder​​registration​​framework​​under​​Schedule​​II​​makes​​it​​clear​ ​that​ ​the​ ​PWM​ ​Rules​ ​are​ ​designed​ ​to​ ​impose​ ​distinct​​and​​independent​​obligations​​on​ ​every​ ​entity​ ​in​ ​the​ ​supply​ ​chain.​ ​It​ ​leaves​ ​no​ ​room​ ​for​ ​an​ ​interpretation​ ​that​ ​compliance​ ​by​ ​one​ ​entity​ ​can​ ​absolve​ ​or​ ​substitute​ ​the​ ​statutory​ ​obligations​ ​of​ ​another.​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​40​ ​54.​ ​Reading​ ​the​ ​provisions​ ​of​ ​Rule​ ​4(ha)​ ​together​ ​with​ ​the​ ​layered​ ​compliance​ ​architecture​ ​under​ ​Schedule​ ​II,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​purposive​ ​reading​ ​of​ ​the​ ​certification​ ​regime​ ​reveals​ ​that​ ​the​ ​obligation​ ​is​​triggered​​at​​the​​stage​​of​​marketing​ ​or​ ​selling​ ​as​ ​well.​ ​The​ ​framework​ ​is​ ​unmistakably​ ​designed​ ​as​ ​a​ ​product-specific,​ ​entity-specific,​ ​point-of-sale​ ​safeguard,​ ​intended​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​only​ ​duly​ ​certified​ ​compostable​ ​plastic​ ​products​ ​enter​ ​the​ ​market,​ ​thereby​ ​protecting​ ​both​ ​the​ ​environment and the public from the risks associated with uncertified materials.​ ​55.​ ​Further,​​the​​argument​​advanced​​by​​the​​petitioner​​that​​the​​1st​​petitioner​ ​will​ ​not​ ​come​ ​within​ ​the​ ​ambit​ ​of​ ​manufacturer​ ​and​ ​producer​ ​as​ ​defined​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Rules​ ​inadvertently​ ​exposes​ ​a​ ​deeper​ ​regulatory​ ​consequence.​ ​If​ ​Swami​ ​Saranam​ ​is​ ​neither​​a​​"manufacturer"​​nor​​a​​"producer,"​​it​​necessarily​​falls​​within​​the​​category​​of​​a​ ​"brand​ ​owner."​ ​The​ ​PWM​ ​Rules,​ ​particularly​ ​after​ ​the​ ​2024​ ​amendment,​ ​expressly​ ​recognise​ ​"brand​ ​owners"​ ​as​ ​a​ ​distinct​ ​and​ ​independently​ ​regulated​ ​class.​ ​Swami​ ​Saranam​ ​owns​ ​and​ ​markets​ ​the​ ​"Bio​ ​Theertha"​ ​brand;​ ​its​ ​name​ ​and​ ​identity​ ​are​ ​affixed​​to​​the​​product,​​and​​it​​is​​the​​entity​​that​​introduces​​the​​product​​into​​commerce.​ ​Brand​ ​owners​ ​are​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​independent​ ​compliance​ ​obligations,​ ​including​ ​registration​ ​and​ ​adherence​ ​to​ ​Extended​ ​Producer​ ​Responsibility​​requirements.​​These​ ​obligations​ ​operate​​irrespective​​of​​whether​​the​​entity​​manufactures​​the​​raw​​material.​ ​Consequently,​ ​Swami​ ​Saranam​ ​cannot​ ​avoid​ ​regulatory​ ​responsibility​ ​by​​relying​​on​​a​ ​narrow​​interpretation​​of​​"manufacturer."​​This​​is​​evident​​from​​Rule​​9​​of​​the​​Rules​​which​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​41​ ​deals​​with​​the​​responsibility​​of​​producers,​​importers​​and​​Brand​​Owners.​​Rule​​9​​reads​ ​as under:​ ​Rule 9 Responsibility of producers, Importers and Brand Owners.--​ ​(1)​ ​The​ ​Producers,​ ​Importers​ ​and​ ​Brand​ ​Owners​ ​who​ ​introduce​​any​​plastic​​packaging​​in​​the​​market​​shall​​be​​responsible​​for​ ​collection of such plastic packaging.​ ​(2)​ ​Where​ ​any​ ​Producer,​ ​Importer​ ​or​ ​Brand​ ​owner​ ​fulfills​ ​his​ ​extended​​producer​​responsibility,​​he​​is​​deemed​​to​​have​​complied​​with​ ​his responsibility under sub-rule (1).​ ​(2A)​​The​​Producers,​​Importers,​​Brand​​Owners,​​manufacturers,​ ​and​​manufacturers​​of​​commodities​​made​​from​​compostable​​plastics​​or​ ​biodegradable​​plastics,​​shall​​fulfil​​Extended​​Producer​​Responsibility​​as​ ​per guidelines specified in Schedule- II.​ ​(3)​ ​manufacture​ ​and​ ​use​ ​of​ ​multi-layered​ ​plastic​ ​which​ ​is​ ​non-recyclable​ ​or​ ​non-energy​ ​recoverable​ ​or​ ​with​ ​no​ ​alternate​ ​use]​ ​should be phased out in Two years time.​ ​(4)​ ​The​ ​producer,​ ​within​ ​a​ ​period​ ​of​ ​three​ ​months​ ​from​ ​the​ ​date​ ​of​ ​final​ ​publication​ ​of​ ​these​ ​rules​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Official​ ​Gazette​ ​shall​ ​apply​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Board​ ​Central​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Board​ ​and​​State​​or​​the​​Pollution​​Control​​Committee,​​as​​the​​case​​may​​be,​​of​ ​the​​States​​or​​the​​Union​​Territories​​administration​​concerned,​​for​​grant​ ​of registration.​ ​(5)​​No​​producer​​shall​​on​​and​​after​​the​​expiry​​of​​a​​period​​of​​Six​ ​Months​​from​​the​​date​​of​​final​​publication​​of​​these​​rules​​in​​the​​Official​ ​Gazette​​manufacture​​or​​use​​any​​plastic​​or​​multilayered​​packaging​​for​ ​packaging​ ​of​ ​commodities​ ​without​ ​registration​ ​from​​Central​​Pollution​ ​Control​​Board​​if​​operating​​in​​more​​than​​two​​states​​or​​Union​​territories​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​42​ ​the​ ​concerned​ ​State​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Board​ ​or​ ​the​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Committees as per sub-rule (2) of rule 13.​ ​(6)​ ​Every​ ​producer​ ​shall​ ​maintain​ ​a​ ​record​ ​of​ ​details​ ​of​ ​the​ ​person​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​supply​ ​of​ ​plastic​ ​used​ ​as​ ​raw​ ​material​ ​to​ ​manufacture​ ​carry​ ​bags​ ​or​ ​plastic​ ​sheet​ ​or​ ​like​ ​or​ ​cover​ ​made​ ​of​ ​plastic sheet or plastic packaging.​ ​56.​ ​In​ ​its​​capacity​​as​​a​​seller​​and​​brand​​owner,​​Swami​​Saranam​​Enterprises​ ​is​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​multiple​ ​statutory​ ​obligations.​ ​Firstly,​ ​under​ ​Rule​ ​4(ha),​ ​no​ ​entity​ ​can​ ​market​ ​or​ ​sell​ ​compostable​ ​plastic​ ​commodities​ ​without​ ​obtaining​ ​prior​ ​certification​ ​from​ ​the​ ​CPCB.​ ​This​ ​obligation​ ​applies​ ​directly​ ​to​ ​sellers,​ ​requiring​ ​a​ ​Form​ ​B​ ​certificate,​​which​​the​​said​​entity​​admittedly​​does​​not​​possess.​​No​​such​​registration​​has​ ​been​ ​obtained.​ ​The​ ​regulatory​ ​framework​ ​also​ ​mandates​ ​registration​ ​with​ ​the​ ​State​ ​Pollution​​Control​​Board--in​​this​​case,​​the​​KSPCB--for​​entities​​engaged​​in​​the​​sale​​and​ ​distribution of such products. This requirement, too, remains unfulfilled.​ ​57.​ ​In​ ​effect,​ ​Swami​ ​Saranam​ ​Enterprises​ ​has​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​comply​ ​with​​any​​of​ ​the​​statutory​​requirements​​applicable​​to​​it​​under​​the​​PWM​​Rules.​​It​​cannot,​​therefore,​ ​evade​​regulatory​​compliance​​by​​distancing​​itself​​from​​the​​definition​​of​​"manufacturer."​ ​The​ ​scheme​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Rules​ ​does​ ​not​ ​permit​ ​an​ ​entity​ ​to​ ​avoid​ ​compliance​ ​by​ ​shifting​ ​categories;​ ​each​ ​role​ ​within​ ​the​ ​supply​ ​chain​ ​carries​ ​its​ ​own​ ​obligations,​ ​and​ ​each​ ​must be independently satisfied.​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​43​ ​Environmental​ ​And​ ​Ecological​ ​Impact​ ​Of​ ​PLA​ ​And​ ​PBAT​ ​Bottles​ ​At​ ​Sabarimala:​ ​58.​ ​Now​ ​we​ ​shall​ ​deal​ ​with​ ​the​ ​issue​ ​as​ ​to​ ​how​ ​PLA​ ​and​ ​PBAT​ ​Bottles​​are​ ​likely​​to​​endanger​​the​​eco​​system​​at​​Sabarimala.​​We​​have​​already​​held​​on​​the​​basis​​of​ ​the​ ​documents​ ​produced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​that​ ​the​ ​contention​ ​of​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​exposes​ ​an​ ​inherent​ ​folly​ ​in​ ​their​ ​claims.​ ​The​ ​foundational​ ​claim​ ​of​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​is​ ​that​ ​their​ ​bottles​ ​are​ ​"100%​ ​plant-based,"​ ​"100%​ ​biodegradable,"​ ​and​ ​that​ ​"even​ ​if​ ​consumed​ ​by​​animals,​​as​​it​​is​​plant-based,​​no​​harm​​whatsoever​​will​​be​​caused.​​Each​ ​of​ ​these​ ​claims​ ​is​ ​scientifically​ ​false,​​and​​their​​own​​evidence​​is​​sufficient​​to​​establish​ ​the​ ​same​ ​Exhibit​ ​P12​ ​CIPET​ ​report​ ​confirms​ ​that​ ​while​ ​the​ ​bottle​ ​body​​is​​Poly(lactic​ ​acid)​ ​(PLA),​ ​the​ ​bottle​ ​cap​ ​contains​ ​PLA​ ​and​ ​PBAT​ ​(Polybutylene​ ​Adipate-co-Terephthalate).​​PBAT​​is​​synthesised​​entirely​​from​​petrochemical​​monomers​ ​--​ ​1,4-butanediol,​ ​adipic​ ​acid,​ ​and​ ​terephthalic​ ​acid​ ​--​ ​all​ ​derived​ ​from​ ​petroleum.​ ​There​​is​​no​​plant-based​​carbon​​in​​PBAT.​​The​​bottle​​cap​​of​​every​​"Bio​​Theertha"​​bottle​ ​that​ ​a​ ​pilgrim​ ​carries​ ​to​ ​Sabarimala​ ​contains​ ​a​ ​petrochemical​ ​polymer​ ​--​ ​the​ ​same​ ​elemental​ ​category​​as​​conventional​​plastic.​​The​​"100%​​plant-based"​​claim​​is​​false​​on​ ​the​ ​face​ ​of​ ​the​ ​petitioner's​ ​own​ ​evidence.​​Furthermore,​​the​​claim​​of​​biodegradability​ ​in​ ​the​ ​open​ ​environment​ ​is​ ​scientifically​ ​insupportable.​ ​PLA​ ​degrades​ ​through​ ​hydrolytic​ ​chain​​scission​​--​​but​​this​​process​​requires​​sustained​​temperatures​​of​​55​​to​ ​70​ ​degrees​ ​Celsius,​​achievable​​only​​in​​industrial​​composting​​facilities.​​At​​the​​ambient​ ​temperatures​ ​of​ ​the​​Periyar​​forest​​floor​​--​​25​​to​​35​​degrees​​Celsius​​--​​the​​hydrolysis​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​44​ ​rate​ ​of​ ​PLA​ ​is​ ​approximately​ ​10,000​ ​times​ ​slower​​than​​in​​an​​industrial​​composter.​​At​ ​the​ ​water​ ​temperature​ ​of​ ​the​​Pamba​​river​​--​​18​​to​​28​​degrees​​Celsius​​--​​PLA​​shows​ ​negligible​ ​mass​ ​loss​ ​over​ ​periods​ ​of​ ​one​ ​to​ ​two​ ​years.​ ​The​ ​CPCB​ ​in​ ​its​ ​counter​ ​has​ ​asserted​​that​​compostable​​plastics​​can​​be​​converted​​to​​compost​​only​​under​​industrial​ ​composting​ ​conditions​ ​and​ ​not​ ​in​ ​the​​open​​environment.​​In​​the​​open​​environment​​it​ ​will​ ​lead​ ​to​ ​littering​ ​as​ ​it​ ​will​ ​not​ ​convert​ ​into​ ​compost.​ ​Furthermore​ ​there​ ​are​ ​no​ ​industrial​​composting​​facilities​​in​​Kerala​​which​​fact​​is​​reiterated​​in​​the​​counter​​filed​​by​ ​the​ ​KSPCB.​ ​Even​ ​if​ ​every​ ​pilgrim​ ​dutifully​ ​deposited​ ​their​ ​bottle​ ​in​​a​​designated​​bin,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​composting​ ​infrastructure​ ​anywhere​ ​in​ ​the​ ​state​ ​to​ ​process​ ​them.​ ​The​ ​bottles​​will​​inevitably​​enter​​the​​environment​​--​​the​​forest​​floor,​​the​​trekking​​paths,​​the​ ​Pamba​ ​river.​ ​The​ ​Forest​ ​Department's​ ​affidavit,​ ​sworn​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Chief​ ​Conservator​ ​of​ ​Forests​​(Wildlife)​​and​​Field​​Director,​​Kottayam,​ ​asserts​​that​​the​​bottles​​are​​a​​threat​​to​ ​the​ ​animals​ ​irrespective​ ​of​ ​degradable​ ​or​ ​non-degradable​ ​nature.​ ​The​ ​danger​ ​is​ ​not​ ​contingent​​on​​whether​​the​​bottle​​is​​plastic​​or​​PLA.​​The​​danger​​is​​physical,​​mechanical,​ ​and immediate -- independent of any biodegradability claim.​ ​59.​ ​Elephants​ ​are​ ​known​ ​to​ ​be​ ​habituated​ ​to​ ​foraging​ ​near​ ​human​ ​settlement​ ​and​ ​pilgrimage​ ​infrastructure.​ ​They​ ​are​ ​drawn​ ​to​ ​novel​ ​objects,​ ​food​ ​residues,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​sugar​ ​content​ ​in​ ​discarded​ ​juice​ ​bottles.​ ​An​ ​elephant​ ​cannot​ ​distinguish​ ​a​ ​PLA​ ​bottle​ ​from​ ​a​ ​PET​ ​bottle​ ​by​ ​sight​ ​or​ ​smell.​ ​An​ ​adult​ ​elephant's​ ​digestive​ ​system​ ​operates​ ​at​ ​37​​o​C ​ ​ ​body​ ​temperature​ ​--​ ​18​ ​to​ ​33​​degrees​​below​​the​ ​minimum​ ​temperature​ ​at​ ​which​ ​PLA​ ​hydrolysis​ ​begins​​at​​any​​meaningful​​rate.​​A​​PLA​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​45​ ​bottle​​or​​its​​fragments,​​once​​ingested,​​will​​remain​​structurally​​intact​​in​​the​​elephant's​ ​gastrointestinal​ ​tract​ ​for​ ​an​ ​indefinitely​ ​long​ ​period​ ​--​ ​causing​ ​obstruction,​ ​enteritis,​ ​perforation​ ​from​ ​sharp​ ​broken​ ​edges,​ ​and​ ​impaction.​ ​Wildlife​ ​veterinarians​ ​across​ ​India​ ​have​ ​documented​ ​severe​ ​gastrointestinal​​injuries​​and​​deaths​​in​​elephants​​from​ ​plastic​ ​ingestion.​ ​The​ ​petitioner's​ ​assurance​ ​that​ ​plant-based​ ​material​ ​is​ ​harmless​​to​ ​animals​ ​demonstrates​ ​a​ ​fundamental​ ​misunderstanding​ ​of​ ​animal​ ​physiology.​ ​An​ ​elephant's​ ​stomach​ ​does​ ​not​ ​function​ ​as​ ​an​ ​industrial​ ​composter.Birds​ ​--​ ​hornbills,​ ​eagles,​ ​peafowl,​ ​waterbirds​ ​--​ ​face​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​and​ ​lethal​ ​risk​ ​from​ ​the​ ​bottle​ ​cap​ ​(confirmed​ ​to​ ​contain​ ​PBAT)​ ​and​ ​the​ ​shrink​ ​film​ ​label.​ ​Thin​ ​flexible​​films​​are​​among​ ​the​ ​most​ ​lethal​ ​materials​ ​for​ ​birds​ ​--​ ​they​ ​cause​ ​entanglement​ ​and​ ​wrap​ ​around​ ​internal​ ​organs​ ​when​ ​ingested.​ ​The​ ​bottle​ ​cap,​ ​being​ ​rigid​ ​and​ ​small​ ​enough​ ​to​ ​be​ ​investigated​​and​​swallowed​​by​​larger-billed​​species,​​is​​particularly​​dangerous.​​No​​bird​ ​species​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Periyar​ ​Tiger​ ​Reserve​ ​possesses​ ​an​ ​enzyme​ ​system​ ​capable​ ​of​ ​degrading​​PLA​​or​​PBAT.​​Wild​​boar​​and​​deer​​--​​the​​most​​commonly​​encountered​​large​ ​mammals​ ​on​ ​the​ ​trekking​ ​paths​ ​to​ ​Sannidhanam​ ​--​ ​are​ ​opportunistic​ ​foragers​ ​susceptible​ ​to​ ​intestinal​ ​obstruction​ ​from​ ​rigid​ ​objects.​ ​Deer,​ ​with​ ​their​ ​smaller​ ​gastrointestinal​ ​tract​ ​relative​ ​to​ ​body​ ​size,​ ​are​ ​particularly​ ​vulnerable​ ​to​ ​bottle​ ​fragment​ ​impaction.​ ​Every​ ​bridge​ ​on​ ​the​ ​pilgrimage​ ​route​ ​is​ ​a​ ​disposal​ ​point.​ ​The​ ​tradition​ ​of​ ​bathing​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Pamba​ ​and​ ​casting​ ​offerings​ ​creates​ ​an​ ​established​ ​behavioural​ ​pattern​ ​where​ ​objects​ ​enter​ ​the​ ​water.​ ​Bottles​ ​left​ ​on​ ​the​ ​riverbank​ ​will​ ​enter​ ​the​ ​river​ ​with​ ​every​ ​monsoon​ ​flood​ ​--​ ​and​ ​in​ ​a​ ​region​ ​receiving​ ​up​ ​to​ ​5,000​ ​millimetres​​of​​annual​​rainfall,​​every​​monsoon​​is​​a​​certainty.​​Once​​in​​the​​Pamba,​​a​​PLA​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​46​ ​bottle​ ​does​ ​not​ ​biodegrade.​ ​It​ ​undergoes​ ​photo-oxidative​ ​and​ ​mechanical​ ​fragmentation​ ​--​ ​UV​ ​radiation​ ​from​ ​sunlight​ ​and​​the​​mechanical​​force​​of​​the​​flowing​ ​river​ ​break​ ​the​ ​bottle​ ​into​ ​progressively​ ​smaller​ ​pieces.​ ​These​ ​are​ ​not​ ​lactic​ ​acid​ ​monomers​ ​--​ ​they​ ​are​ ​PLA​ ​microplastic​ ​particles,​ ​ranging​ ​from​ ​millimetres​ ​to​ ​micrometres​ ​in​ ​size,​ ​that​ ​behave​ ​in​ ​the​ ​river​ ​ecosystem​ ​exactly​ ​as​ ​conventional​ ​microplastics:​ ​ingested​ ​by​ ​fish​ ​and​ ​invertebrates,​ ​accumulated​ ​in​​sediments,​​sorbing​ ​hydrophobic pollutants from the water column, and entering the food chain.​ ​60.​ ​Aquatic​​organisms​​in​​the​​river​​ecosystem​​feed​​by​​browsing​​the​​riverbed​ ​and​ ​filtering​ ​or​ ​ingesting​ ​material​ ​from​ ​the​​water​​column,​​rendering​​them​​inherently​ ​vulnerable​​to​​the​​ingestion​​of​​PLA​​fragments.​​Once​​such​​fragments​​accumulate​​within​ ​the​ ​digestive​ ​system,​ ​the​ ​biological​ ​processes​ ​of​ ​these​ ​organisms​ ​are​ ​incapable​ ​of​ ​degrading​ ​materials​ ​such​ ​as​ ​PLA​ ​or​ ​PBAT.​ ​This​ ​results​ ​in​ ​impaired​ ​feeding​ ​capacity,​ ​physiological​ ​stress,​ ​and​​inflammatory​​responses,​​ultimately​​leading​​to​​mortality.​​The​ ​impact​ ​is​ ​not​ ​confined​ ​to​ ​primary​ ​ingestion.​ ​Secondary​ ​transfer​ ​occurs​ ​through​ ​the​ ​food​​chain,​​whereby​​organisms​​at​​higher​​trophic​​levels​​are​​exposed​​to​​such​​fragments​ ​through​ ​the​ ​consumption​ ​of​ ​contaminated​ ​prey.​ ​In​ ​addition,​ ​several​ ​aquatic​ ​species​ ​are​ ​unable​ ​to​ ​distinguish​ ​between​ ​plastic​ ​fragments​ ​and​ ​natural​ ​food​ ​sources,​ ​resulting​ ​in​ ​inadvertent​ ​ingestion.​ ​Filter-feeding​ ​organisms​ ​are​​particularly​​at​​risk,​​as​ ​they​ ​continuously​ ​process​ ​large​ ​volumes​ ​of​ ​water​ ​and​ ​are​ ​unable​ ​to​ ​differentiate​ ​between​ ​organic​ ​nutrients​ ​and​ ​microplastic​ ​particles.​ ​This​ ​leads​ ​to​ ​widespread​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​47​ ​contamination​ ​across​ ​the​ ​water​ ​column,​ ​affecting​ ​multiple​ ​levels​ ​of​ ​the​ ​aquatic​ ​ecosystem and disrupting ecological balance.​ ​61.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​to​ ​be​ ​noted​ ​that​ ​between​ ​30​ ​and​ ​50​ ​million​ ​pilgrims​ ​visit​ ​Sannidhanam​ ​during​ ​the​ ​Mandalam-Makaravilakku​ ​season.​ ​Even​ ​if​ ​a​ ​conservative​ ​estimate​ ​of​ ​10%​ ​is​ ​adopted,​ ​this​ ​would​ ​result​ ​in​ ​3​ ​to​ ​5​ ​million​ ​bottles​ ​entering​​this​ ​fragile​ ​ecosystem​ ​within​ ​a​ ​single​ ​season.​ ​The​​collection​​mechanism​​proposed​​by​​the​ ​petitioner,​ ​projected​ ​as​ ​a​ ​safeguard,​ ​is​ ​neither​ ​operationally​ ​credible​ ​nor​ ​practically​ ​enforceable.​​The​​trekking​​routes​​to​​Sannidhanam--including​​the​​Pamba-Sannidhanam​ ​route​ ​of​ ​approximately​ ​5​ ​kilometres​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Erumeli-Sannidhanam​ ​route​ ​of​ ​approximately​ ​61​ ​kilometres--pass​ ​through​ ​dense​ ​forest​ ​areas​ ​forming​ ​part​ ​of​ ​a​ ​critical​ ​tiger​ ​habitat.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​inconceivable​ ​that​ ​any​ ​collection​ ​system​ ​could​ ​effectively​ ​monitor,​​retrieve,​​and​​manage​​waste​​across​​such​​terrain,​​particularly​​in​​the​​context​​of​ ​such massive footfall.​ ​62.​ ​This​ ​Court,​ ​in​ ​multiple​ ​proceedings​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Sabarimala​ ​Special​ ​Commissioner​ ​Reports​ ​(SSCR),​ ​has​ ​already​ ​recorded​ ​that,​ ​despite​ ​sustained​ ​enforcement​ ​efforts,​ ​plastic​ ​waste​​continues​​to​​be​​found​​throughout​​the​​forest​​areas​ ​and​ ​within​ ​the​ ​Pamba​ ​river​​system.​​Even​​assuming​​an​​optimistic​​escape​​rate​​of​​1%,​ ​this​​would​​result​​in​​approximately​​30,000​​to​​50,000​​bottles​​being​​left​​within​​the​​forest​ ​or​ ​entering​ ​the​ ​river​ ​system​ ​in​ ​a​ ​single​ ​season.​ ​Such​​a​​quantity​​is​​neither​​negligible​ ​nor​ ​manageable​ ​in​ ​a​ ​critically​ ​sensitive​ ​ecological​ ​zone.​ ​The​ ​consequences​ ​of​ ​such​ ​accumulation would be severe and irreversible.​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​48​ ​63.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​an​ ​additional​ ​and​ ​more​ ​insidious​ ​dimension​ ​to​ ​the​ ​issue.​ ​The​ ​petitioner's​ ​own​ ​labelling--particularly​ ​the​ ​assertion​ ​"I​ ​AM​ ​NOT​ ​PLASTIC"​ ​and​ ​the​ ​representation​​that​​the​​product​​is​​capable​​of​​"natural​​composting"--is​​likely​​to​​create​ ​a​ ​false​ ​sense​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​harmlessness​ ​among​ ​users.​ ​A​ ​pilgrim​ ​encountering​ ​such​ ​messaging​ ​may​ ​reasonably,​ ​though​ ​incorrectly,​ ​conclude​ ​that​ ​discarding​ ​the​ ​bottle​ ​in​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​would​ ​have​ ​no​ ​adverse​ ​consequences.​ ​This​ ​behavioural​ ​effect​ ​is​ ​not​ ​speculative;​ ​it​ ​is​ ​a​ ​direct​ ​and​ ​foreseeable​ ​outcome​ ​of​ ​the​ ​petitioner's​ ​representations.​ ​The​ ​scientific​ ​inaccuracy​ ​of​ ​such​ ​claims​ ​only​​aggravates​​the​​risk.​​In​ ​effect,​ ​the​ ​product​ ​may​ ​encourage​ ​more​ ​careless​ ​disposal​ ​than​ ​conventional​ ​materials, thereby exacerbating environmental harm rather than mitigating it.​ ​Established Legal And Regulatory Framework Governing Sabarimala:​ ​64.​ ​The​​regulatory​​context​​further​​reinforces​​the​​position.​​The​​prohibition​​on​ ​plastic​ ​materials​ ​at​ ​Sabarimala​ ​dates​ ​back​ ​to​ ​2010,​ ​when​ ​the​ ​Kerala​ ​State​ ​Pollution​ ​Control​ ​Board,​ ​by​ ​Notification​ ​dated​ ​22.11.2010,​ ​imposed​ ​restrictions​ ​in​​response​​to​ ​documented​ ​environmental​ ​degradation.​ ​This​ ​was​ ​not​ ​a​ ​temporary​ ​measure,​ ​but​ ​a​ ​considered regulatory intervention in a protected ecosystem.​ ​65.​ ​This​​Court,​​in​​its​​judgment​​in​​W.P.(C)​​No.​​38820​​of​​2016,​​recorded​​that​ ​the​ ​use​ ​of​​non-biodegradable​​materials,​​including​​tins​​and​​cans​​for​​packaged​​liquids,​ ​was​ ​causing​ ​environmental​ ​degradation​ ​in​ ​the​ ​region,​ ​and​ ​accordingly​ ​upheld​ ​and​ ​extended​​the​​ban.​​In​​SSCR​​No.​​9​​of​​2015,​​this​​Court​​imposed​​a​​complete​​prohibition​ ​on​​plastic​​materials​​at​​Sabarimala,​​Pamba,​​and​​Sannidhanam,​​exercising​​its​​continuing​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​49​ ​supervisory​​jurisdiction​​over​​the​​area.​​The​​petitioner,​​in​​substance,​​seeks​​a​​relaxation​ ​of​ ​this​ ​established​ ​prohibition.​ ​The​ ​threshold​ ​for​ ​such​ ​a​ ​request--particularly​ ​in​ ​relation​ ​to​ ​an​ ​ecologically​ ​fragile​ ​and​ ​legally​​protected​​region--is​​necessarily​​high.​​It​ ​requires​ ​demonstrable​ ​scientific​ ​certainty​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​safety,​ ​full​ ​regulatory​ ​compliance,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​robust,​ ​enforceable​ ​disposal​ ​mechanism.​ ​None​ ​of​ ​these​ ​requirements​ ​have​ ​been​ ​satisfied.​​This​​Court​​has,​​as​​recently​​as​​13.08.2024​​in​​SSCR​ ​No.​ ​17​ ​of​ ​2024,​ ​directed​ ​strict​ ​enforcement​​of​​the​​ban​​on​​plastic​​items,​​PET​​bottles,​ ​and​ ​glass​ ​bottles​ ​at​ ​Nilakkal,​ ​Pamba,​ ​Sannidhanam,​ ​and​ ​along​ ​the​ ​trekking​ ​routes.​ ​The​ ​continued​​issuance​​of​​such​​directions​​underscores​​that​​the​​prohibition​​is​​actively​ ​enforced​ ​and​ ​remains​ ​a​ ​matter​ ​of​ ​ongoing​ ​judicial​ ​concern.​ ​Further,​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​No.​ ​30685​ ​of​ ​2024​ ​dated​ ​10.10.2024,​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​considered​ ​the​ ​limited​ ​question​ ​of​ ​permissible​ ​exceptions​ ​and​ ​recognised​ ​only​ ​tetra-packaged​ ​products​ ​with​ ​valid​ ​Extended​ ​Producer​ ​Responsibility​ ​(EPR)​ ​registration--owing​ ​to​ ​their​ ​established​ ​collection​ ​and​ ​recycling​ ​infrastructure--as​ ​falling​ ​within​ ​a​ ​narrow​ ​exception.​ ​The​ ​petitioner's​ ​product​ ​does​ ​not​ ​fall​ ​within​ ​this​ ​category.​​It​​lacks​​EPR​​registration,​​lacks​ ​any​ ​credible​ ​collection​ ​infrastructure,​ ​and​ ​does​​not​​possess​​the​​necessary​​regulatory​ ​certification​ ​for​ ​the​ ​form​ ​in​ ​which​ ​it​ ​is​ ​proposed​ ​to​ ​be​ ​marketed.​ ​The​ ​Kerala​ ​State​ ​Pollution​​Control​​Board,​​by​​its​​notification​​dated​​07.11.2025​​issued​​under​​Section​​5​​of​ ​the​ ​Environment​ ​(Protection)​ ​Act,​ ​1986,​ ​has​ ​consolidated​ ​and​ ​reaffirmed​ ​the​ ​regulatory​ ​position.​ ​The​ ​notification​ ​clearly​ ​mandates​ ​that​ ​the​ ​ban​ ​on​ ​plastic​ ​items,​ ​PET​ ​bottles,​ ​glass​ ​bottles,​ ​and​ ​sealed​ ​containers--except​ ​tetra​ ​packages​ ​with​ ​EPR​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​50​ ​registration--shall​ ​continue​ ​to​ ​operate​ ​at​ ​Nilakkal,​ ​Pamba,​ ​Sannidhanam,​ ​and​ ​along​ ​the trekking routes, and directs all concerned authorities to ensure strict compliance.​ ​66.​ ​This​​Court​​has,​​over​​the​​past​​decade​​and​​a​​half,​​developed​​a​​consistent​ ​and​ ​carefully​ ​structured​ ​legal​ ​framework​ ​to​ ​safeguard​ ​this​ ​ecologically​ ​sensitive​ ​region.​ ​That​ ​framework​ ​is​ ​grounded​ ​in​ ​statutory​ ​protections​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Wildlife​ ​(Protection)​​Act,​​the​​Forest​​(Conservation)​​Act,​​and​​the​​Environment​​(Protection)​​Act,​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​in​ ​constitutional​ ​principles​ ​and​ ​established​ ​doctrines​ ​such​ ​as​ ​the​ ​Precautionary​​Principle.​​In​​the​​present​​case,​​the​​issue​​does​​not​​call​​for​​a​​balancing​​of​ ​competing​ ​interests.​ ​The​ ​ecological​ ​sensitivity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​region,​ ​the​ ​scale​ ​of​ ​potential​ ​harm,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​absence​ ​of​ ​compliance​​by​​the​​petitioner​​leave​​no​​room​​for​​dilution​​of​ ​the existing safeguards. The protection of the environment must prevail.​ ​Conclusion​ ​67.​ ​Accordingly,​​we​​find​​no​​merit​​in​​the​​reliefs​​sought​​by​​the​​petitioner,​​and​ ​the same are liable to be rejected.​ ​This Writ Petition is dismissed.​ ​Sd/-​ ​RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​ ​JUDGE​ ​ d/-​ S ​K. V. JAYAKUMAR​ ​JUDGE​ ​PS​​/05/04/26​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​51​ APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 42787 OF 2025​ ​ PETITIONER EXHIBITS​ ​ Exhibit P1​ ​ ​RUE​ ​ T COPY​ ​ OF​ ​THE​ ​ LICENSE​ ​ISSUED​ ​ BY​ ​ THE​ DIN​ ​ ​ CERTCO​ ​ WHICH​ ​ IS​ ​THE​ ​WIDELY​ ​ ACCEPTED​ CERTIFICATION​ ​ ​ AGENCY​ ​ OF​ ​THE​ ​ EUROPEAN​ UNION DATED 27.07.2020​ ​ Exhibit P2​ ​ THE​ ​ ​ TRUE​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​THE​ ​TEST​ ​ REPORT​ ​ ISSUED​ BY​ ​ CIPET:​ ​ INSTITUTE​ ​ OF​ ​ PLASTICS​ ​ TECHNOLOGY​ ​ ​ (IPT)​ ​ KOCHI​ ​ BEARING​ ​ NO.​ CIPTET:​ ​ IPT-KOCHI/TESTING/2020-21/1532​ ​ DATED 25.01.2021​ ​ Exhibit P3​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ REPORT​ ​ISSUED​ ​ BY​ ​THE​ HEXIQON​ ​ ​ LABORATORY​ ​ BEARING​ ​ TEST​ ​ REPORT​ NO. HL/MP/230210011 DATED 18.03.2023​ ​ Exhibit P4​ ​ THE​ ​ ​ TRUE​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​THE​ ​CERTIFICATE​ ​ ISSUED​ TO​ ​ ​ THE​ ​ 7TH​ ​ RESPONDENT​ ​ BY​ ​ THE​ ​ 6TH​ RESPONDENT​ ​ ​ CENTRAL​ ​ POLLUTION​ ​ CONTROL​ BOARD​ ​ ​ BEARING​ ​ NO.​ ​ CPCB-UPC-II/GREEN​ ​ DOT​ BIOPAK/GUJARAT/443 DATED 09.08.2023​ ​ Exhibit P5​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​THE​ ​ CERTIFICATE​ ​ ISSUED​ ​ BY​ THE​ ​ ​ 7TH​ ​RESPONDENT​ ​ TO​ ​ THE​ ​ 1ST​ ​PETITIONER​ DATED 31.10.2025​ ​ Exhibit P6​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ DESIGN​ ​OF​ ​THE​ ​ BOTTLE​ SHOWING THE QR CODE​ ​ Exhibit P7​ ​ THE​​ ​ TRUE​​ COPY​​ OF​​ THE​​ LETTER​​ ISSUED​​ TO​​ THE​ 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL​ ​ Exhibit P8​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ REPRESENTATION​ ​ FILED​ BEFORE​ ​ ​ THE​ ​ 2ND​ ​ RESPONDENT​ ​ BY​ ​ THE​ PETITIONER DATED 07.11.2025​ ​ Exhibit P9​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​OF​ ​THE​ ​TEST​ ​REPORT​ ​BEARING​ ​ NO.​ HL/MP/251106007​ ​ ​ ISSUED​ ​ BY​ ​THE​ ​ HEXIQON​ LABORATORY PVT. LTD DATED 17.11.2025​ ​ Exhibit P10​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​OF​ ​THE​ ​FSSAI​ ​LICENSE​ ​ ISSUED​ ​ BY​ THE BLU INDUSTRIES DATED 27.07.2024​ ​ Exhibit P11​ ​ TRUE​ ​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​THE​ ​ TEST​ ​REPORT​ ​ ISSUED​ ​ BY​ THE​ ​ ​ SMS​ ​ LABS​ ​ SERVICES​ ​ PRIVATE​ ​ LIMITED​ DATED 22.10.2025​ ​ Exhibit P12​ ​ THE​ ​ ​ PHOTOSTAT​ ​ COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ TEST​ ​ REPORT​ ​2026:KER:31403​ ​WP(C) No. 42787 of 202​​5​ ​52​ ​EARING​ ​ B NO.251453​ ​ DATED​ ​ 17.12.2025​​ ISSUED​ BY​ ​ ​ THE​ ​CENTRAL​ ​ INSTITUTE​ ​OF​ ​ PETRO​ CHEMICALS​ ​ ENGINEERING​ ​ AND​ ​ TECHNOLOGY(CIPET)​ ​ RESPONDENT EXHIBITS​ ​ Exhibit R8(a)​ ​ ​rue​ ​ T copy​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Notification​ ​No.​ KSPCB/1572/2025-SEE-1​ ​ ​ dated​ ​ 7-11-2025,​ issued​ ​ ​ by​ ​ the​ ​Kerala​ ​State​ ​ Pollution​ Control Board.​ ​