Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

that a Special Leave Petition No. 18305/2019 has been registered before the Apex Court against the said judgment of the Division Bench, wherein arguments have been concluded and the judgment has been reserved. No interim order/stay is in operation qua the said judgment.

25. Lastly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India & Ors., Mr. Sandeep Pathak, has contended that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-firm is manufacturing laminated paper for the further production of laminated paper cups and that the product manufactured by the petitioner-firm (Plastic Laminated Papers) comprising of 95% paper and only 5% of a thin layer of low- density Polyethylene (LDPE) is not tenable. In support of the same, he has submitted that the Plastic Waste Management Rules of 2016, read with the amendment Rules of 2021, do not discriminate between the levels of plastic in a commodity. Admittedly, the product being manufactured by the petitioners contains single use plastic, which in itself, is prohibited. Thus, the petitioners cannot be permitted to claim any exclusion when the product being manufactured is squarely covered by the definitions provided under the Rules.

50. Accordingly, a combined reading of Rule 3(o), Rule 3(va) and Rule 4(2) of the Plastic Waste Management Rules of 2016, as amended by the subject notification dated 12.08.2021, would draw a clear inference that the product of the petitioner is well within the prohibited commodities mentioned under Rule 4(2)

(b).

51. At this juncture, it is noteworthy to appreciate the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent- [2023/RJJP/012775] (42 of 57) [CW-11299/2022] RSPCB, Mr. Shashwat Purohit, that at the time of production of the 'laminated paper'/ 'plastic coated papers' by the petitioner-firm, the latter was in complete knowledge of the fact that the said product manufactured by the petitioner-firm was further used for manufacturing of products made of 'plastic coated paper' i.e. laminated paper cups, which in itself are a 'single-use plastic commodity' as established herein-above, and that such commodities have been prohibited vide subject notification dated 12.08.2021. Thus, the petitioner-firm being unconcerned of the final product made of their manufactured single-use plastic commodity, cannot be accepted as a tenable ground to permit the petitioner-firm to continue the production of the banned substance, further used in the manufacture of other banned substances, as is clarified herein-above.

67. Thus, considering the fact that subject notification under consideration, was enacted to advance the cause of environmental welfare and safety, by imposing a ban on the use of single-use plastic commodities and that the intent behind the issuance of the notification was to curb the pollution caused by single-use plastic items, which have far reaching consequences in adversely impacting the health of our environment and upon taking note of the fact that we are dealing with a law that has been formulated in the larger public interest, this Court deems it fit to hold that the amendments brought forth by the subject notification dated 12.08.2021 will have to be read in their entirety with the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 and each provision of the Rules must be given its due intended meaning by comprehending and resolving the menace the provisions seek to address and rectify.