National Green Tribunal
Mr. Nikhil Vidyadhar Joglekar vs Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 24 September, 2021
Item No.02 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
(By Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 56/2018(WZ)
Mr. Nikhil Vidyadhar Joglekar Applicant(s)
Versus
MoEF&CC & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 24.09.2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : No representation.
Respondent : Mr. Deepak Gupte, Advocate for R-1(MoEF&CC)
Ms. Manasi Joshi a/w Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocates for R-2(MPCB)
Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Advocate for R-6 (CPCB)
Mr. Karan Parmar, Advocate for R-13
ORDER
1. This Tribunal in continuation of the earlier orders dated 17.07.2018 and 10.08.2021, is passing the following order:
2. There is no representation on behalf of the original applicant. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 would submit that the product namely "condom" manufactured by private respondents, comes under the definition of Rule 3 (41) of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and assuming for the sake of arguments, the said definition does not concern with the said product, still it comes under the category of hazardous waste and therefore, it is obligatory on Page No. 1/4 the part of the manufacturers of condom to put in place, the mechanism for the disposal of the used condoms.
3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 would submit that a reply affidavit dated 17.06.2019 has been filed and as per Rule 16 of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, the State Pollution Control Committees are responsible for the effective enforcement of the Rules and there are also under obligation to review the implementation of the Rules within the prescribed time limit.
4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 has invited the attention of the Tribunal to the reply affidavit with annexures and would submit that the guidelines have already been put in place by the respondent no. 6 and communications have also been sent to the Secretaries in-charge of Urban Development Departments of all States and Union Territories as well as to the local bodies vide communications dated 11.09.2017 and 05.10.2017.
5. The learned standing counsel appearing the respondent no. 13 has registered preliminary objection by submitting the product, would not come within the ambit of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and prays for short accommodation to file the counter reply affidavits with supporting documents.
6. The Tribunal has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed on record. It's relevant extract Rule 3 (41) & Rule 17 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016:
Rule 3 (41) of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016:
"sanitary waste" means wastes comprising of used diapers, sanitary towels or napkins, tampons, condoms, incontinence sheets and any other similar waste.Page No. 2/4
Rule 17 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016:
Duty of manufacturers or brand owners of disposable products and sanitary napkins and diapers:-
(1). All manufacturers of disposable products such as tin, glass, plastic packaging, etc., or brand owners who introduce such products in the market shall provide necessary financial assistance to local authorities for establishment of waste management system.
(2). All such brand owners who sell or market their products in such packaging materials which are non-biodegradable shall put in place a system to collect back the packaging waste generated due to their production.
(3). Manufacturers or brand owners or marketing companies of sanitary napkins and diapers shall explore the possibility of using all recyclable materials in their products or they shall provide a pouch or wrapper for disposal of each napkin or diapers along with the packet of their sanitary products.
(4). All such manufacturers, brand owners or marketing companies shall educate the masses for wrapping and disposal of their products.
7. Rule 3 (41) makes it very clear that the product namely condoms also come within the definition of the sanitary waste. Rule 17 in the considered opinion of the Tribunal, only an inclusive definition and not exhaustive. However, the said position of law is being disputed by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent no. 13.
8. Call on 24.11.2021. Counter affidavits of the official respondents as well as respondent no. 13 with supporting documents, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. Though the rest of the private respondents have been served they have not entered appearance so far. Page No. 3/4
M. Sathyanarayanan, JM Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM September 24, 2021 Original Application No. 56/2018(WZ) P.kr Page No. 4/4