Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Principal ... vs A.K. Bag House, Thr. Its Prop. Aainaz ... on 20 February, 2019
Author: Naresh H. Patil
Bench: Naresh H. Patil
1
mca-st-2638-19.doc
pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 2638 OF 2019
(For Transfer from Nagpur Bench)
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6955 OF 2018
The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant
Vs.
1. A. K. Bag House and ors. ..Respondents
Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for applicant - State.
Mr. R. B. Raghuvanshi I/by Mr. Ratnesh Dube a/w Shantanu Sharma for
respondent no.1.
Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh for respondent no. 12 - MPCB.
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL, C.J.
FEBRUARY 20, 2019 (IN CHAMBER AT 2.45 P.M.) P.C.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. The applicant - State has filed this Misc. Civil Application praying for transferring the papers and proceeding of the Writ Petition No. 6955 of 2018, pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench to the Principal Seat of this Court and be heard along with Writ Petition (L) Nos. 1061/2018, 1098/2018 and 1129/2018. ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 08:07:38 ::: 2
mca-st-2638-19.doc
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 tendered reply filed by Mr. Aainaz Diwan Khan S/o Dewan Niyanat Khan, opposing the Misc. Civil Application, which is taken on record.
4. The prayers in Writ Petition No. 6955 of 2018 filed at Nagpur Bench, read as under :-
"a. Hold and declare that the non-woven polypropylene bags of 300 to 1200 microns thickness are not single use disposal product and therefore, not covered by the notification dated 23.03.2018 (ANNEXURE-5) b. Quash and set aside the impugned notification dated 23.03.2018 (ANNEXURE-5) in so far as it bans manufacture, transport, store, sale, import etc. of non- woven polypropylene bags being beyond the powers of respondent no.1 conferred under Section 4 of the Garbage Act of 2006, in consistent and repugnant to the Environment (Protection) Act of 1956 and Plastic Waste Management Rules of 2016 and also violative of Art. 14, 19(1)(g), 21 of the Constitution of India.
c. Hold and declare the action of respondent no.4 of search, seizure and imposing penalty on persons on the spot and not referring the matters for adjudication as contemplated ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 08:07:38 ::: 3 mca-st-2638-19.doc by the Garbage Act of 2006 is illegal, invalid, impermissible and without authority of law and be further pleased to direct the respondent no.4 to refund the penalties imposed by it and return the seized goods forthwith to all persons including the petitioners.
d. During pendency of the writ petition the effect, execution and operation of the notification dated 23.03.2018 (ANNEXURE - 5) be kindly stayed in so far it relates to non-woven polypropylene bags of 300 to 1200 microns thickness.
5. The learned AGP submits that in the petitions filed in Bombay High Court, the competency of the State legislature to issue notification dated 23/3/2018 is raised, which according to the respondents is beyond the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act, 2006. The challenge is also based on violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. Mr. Raghuvanshi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 submits that the petitions placed before the Division Bench at Nagpur are being heard on merits and during the hearing, the learned AGP made a statement that an application for clubbing the said petitions ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 08:07:38 ::: 4 mca-st-2638-19.doc with the one pending at the Principal Seat of this Court will be presented and accordingly hearing of those petitions was deferred.
7. Mr. Raghuvanshi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, on instructions, states that the original petitioners are primarily concerned regarding the relief at prayer clause (a) of the petition, which is quoted in para 4 above. The learned counsel for respondent no.1, on instructions, further states that the original petitioners are not pressing for the relief in prayer clause (b) of the petition relating to validity of the notification at this stage. The learned counsel submits that as and when occasion arises, the petitioners would take appropriate steps for making appropriate application in the pending petitions before the Division Bench at Bombay raising challenge to the validity of the notification dated 23.03.2018.
8. Perused the record and considered the submissions advanced.
9. In view of the statements made above by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 08:07:38 :::