Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Petitioners contend that the provisions of Central enactment namely Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the provisions of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 framed thereunder permit manufacture of the carry bags and their quality. Rule 4[c] is relied upon to urge that ban is only on manufacturing carry bags which are below 30 microns in thickness. Arrangement for plastic waste management in Rule 5[b] and its recycling is also relied Order 0211wp6955.18 upon for this purpose. It is contended that this enactment and Rules are under Article 253 of the Constitution of India and hence, the State Government / State Legislature cannot take any step inconsistent with it.

18. He has taken us through relevant provisions and also to somewhat identical challenge looked into by the Division Bench at Nagpur in judgment reported at 2007 (4) ALL MR 642 (Godavari Polymer and others .vrs. Union of India and others).

19. Learned Senior Counsel in reply arguments has attempted to show how Division Bench while deciding case of Godavari Polymers, did not receive proper assistance. Fact that subject of enactment is not in a common list, cannot always be decisive. He has invited our attention to entry no.13 in List 1 of Schedule-7 and submitted that the 1986 Act is under this entry. He further submits that this enactment is on account of International Obligations cast on India, and therefore, and hence, Article 253 is squarely attracted. He relies upon judgments reported at (1997) 2 SCC 87 (S. Jagannath .vrs. Union of India and others).

20. While commenting upon the arguments advanced on the strength of judgment of National Green Tribunal [supra], he contends that said judgment does not look into List-1 entry or Article 253 of the Constitution of India. It considers only Central enactment and Rules framed thereunder. According to him, express language of Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act sufficiently clinched the Order 0211wp6955.18 controversy, as power to give directions could have been exercised by the Central Government only subject to provisions of 1986 Act. He further points out that attention of National Green Tribunal was not invited to 2011 Rules, which were on same lines as of 2016 Rules, framed thereunder. Those Rules prescribed thickness of 50 microns as a norm.

21. In later phase of argument, on 01.11.2018, he submitted that question - Whether State Legislature can, in present matter prescribe more rigorous standards, than one laid down by the Central Legislation, need not detain the Court since here State already had/has a standard of 50 microns and if this standard is adhered to in impugned notification, petitioners may not have any grievance. He invited our attention to judgment reported at 2016 (6) Mh.L.J. 833 (Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Amravati and another .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others), and attempted to distinguish it, as one of us (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J) is party to it. He also points out that overriding effect of Article 253 by relying upon observations in paragraph no.459 in judgment reported at Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and another .vrs. Union of India and others).