Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No. 3337 of 2019, the nature and extent of use of non-woven bags have been totally misunderstood by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner also would contend that non-woven carry bags generate 60% less greenhouse gas emissions than un-composted paper bags and 79% less greenhouse gas emissions than composted paper bags. It is further stated that the respondents, without giving effect to the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, had erroneously imposed the ban on non woven plastic http://www.judis.nic.in bags without any scientific data or study. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, for deciding between various approaches in Solid Waste Management, the first step is to reduce waste generation and secondly to re-use the material for the purpose for which it was originally intended or to recycle the material that cannot be reused. The third step, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is to recover them in an environmental friendly manner and energy from solid waste that cannot be economically and technically reused or recycled and lastly, to dispose of the solid waste, that is not being reused or recycled by land burial or other approved methods. However, without resorting to these scientific waste management approach, the respondents have decided to impose a total ban. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the parameters laid down in the aforesaid Rules have not been strictly followed by one and all in the matter of waste segregation or littering. In such circumstances, the respondents ought to have imposed stringent measures to implement the Rules instead of passing the impugned order. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated 02.01.2017 passed by the National Green Tribunal in O.A. No. 199 of 2014 in the case of Mrs. Almitra H. Patel, Convenor, INTACH Waste Network, Bangalore and another vs. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi and others wherein the Tribunal relied on the order dated 02.09.2014 of the Honourable Supreme Court, transferring WP No. 888 of 1996 to the file of the Tribunal, with an observation as follows:-

(ii) Next it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that Plastic Waste http://www.judis.nic.in Management Rules, 2016 was enacted by Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 3, 6 and 25 of the Act. The said Rules were framed with the concept of sustainable development and polluter's pay principle. It is noteworthy to mention that the Rules permit manufacturing of certain items of products, but the same products were prohibited by the Government in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order of the Government is repugnant and inconsistent with the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016. Rule 3 (c) of The Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 defines 'carry bags' as the one made from plastic material or compostable plastic material, but do not form an integral part of the packaging in which goods are sealed prior to use. The Rule also imposes responsibility on the producer for upkeep of the environmental management until the end of its life. As per Rule 4 (1) of The Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, the manufacturer, importer stocking, distribution, sale and use of carry bags, plastic sheets or like, or cover made of plastic sheet and multi-layered packaging, shall be subject to conditions mentioned in Rule 4 (1) (a) to (i) therein. Rule 4 (1) (a) states that carry bags and plastic packaging shall either be in natural shade, which is without any added pigments or made using only those pigments and colourants, which are in conformity with Indian Standard: IS 9833 :

(v) According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, there are 6001 industries in the State engaged in manufacturing various types of carry bags, in which about 3 lakhs employees are directly employed and another 3 lakhs are employed indirectly. The revenue generated through these industries could be roughly around Rs.1,800 crores and these industries have borrowed loans from various Public Sector Banks and Nationalised Banks to run the show. While so, the impugned order passed by the Government ordering closure of these industries, had resulted in unimaginable prejudice and loss to these industries. It was reasoned that the ban is being imposed on use, storage, manufacture and supply of 'one time use of throwaway plastics', irrespective of thickness due to menace caused at the user end, namely disposing the plastic waste indiscriminately, thereby causing blockage of sewers and drains, apart from polluting the water bodies. If it is so, it will not be a ground for banning manufacture, storage, supply and sale of plastics and there is no reasonable nexus or object sought to be achieved by imposing the ban on such plastics. On the other hand, by way of the very same Government order, certain items of products of plastics were given exemption. Thus, according to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, there is no reasonable classification between products mentioned in Clause 1 (d) proviso and those which are covered under Clause 1 (a) and 1 (b) of the impugned Government Order and it offends Article 14 of The Constitution of India. Above all, the task of collecting, segregating the waste etc., are the functions of the Municipality and their failure to discharge their duty in the matter of collection and segregation of plastic waste, should not be put against the petitioners from http://www.judis.nic.in manufacturing and sale of the plastics. Further, the word 'irrespective of thickness' mentioned in the impugned order to ban 9 items is repugnant and inconsistent to the Plastic Waste Management Rules, Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 as well as the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 and Plastics Manufacture, Sale and Usage Rules, 1999, which were enacted in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 read with Section 25 of The Act. According to the learned Senior counsel, the Plastics Manufacture, Sale and Usage Rules, 1999 regulates the plastic manufacture, sale and usage with effect from 02.09.1999. It also contains conditions for manufacture of carry bags and containers made of plastics. Rule 8 thereof provides for thickness of carry bags, while Rule 10 relates to grant of registration of manufacturers. Subsequently, the Plastics Manufacture, Sale and Usage Rules, 1999 were superseded by Plastic Waste Management Rules, which were once again amended and the present Rules viz., Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 is in force. Even the retailers and street vendors' responsibility is spelt out in Rule 14 of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 to the effect that they shall not sell or provide commodities to consumer in carry bags or plastic sheet or multi-layered packaging, which are not manufactured or labelled or marked as per the norms prescribed. Therefore, the Central Government framed Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 upon conferment of powers under Sections 3, 6 and 25 of the Act for minimising plastic waste and disposal of the same. When Central Government has already framed Rules under the Act which permits manufacture, sale, supply and use of certain plastic under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, under the guise of curbing the menace of pollution, regulating plastic waste and source segregation, the State Government had banned certain items of plastics which were permitted to http://www.judis.nic.in be manufactured under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, hence, the impugned Government Order is repugnant, inconsistent and contrary to the aforesaid Rules.

14. Similar submissions were made by Mr. A. Thiyagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No. 34243 of 2018, Mr. K.H. Ravikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No. 828 of 2019 and Mr. N. Damodaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No. 33770 of 2018 and they prayed for allowing the respective writ petitions as prayed for.

15. (i) Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Central Government would justify the issuance of the G.O. Ms. No.84, Environment and Forest (EC.2) Department dated 25.06.2018, which is impugned in these batch of writ petitions. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General, the Ministry of Environment and Forest, in its administrative set up, had taken upon the task of overseeing the implementation of planning, promotion, co- ordination and implementation of various environmental and forestry policies and programmes with respect to Forest and Climate Change. For such purpose, the Central Government has prescribed certain authorities for enforcement of the legislative and regulatory measures in the States and Union Territories through the State Pollution Control Boards, Pollution Control Committees, Urban Local Bodies etc., One such piece of Legislation framed was Plastic Manufacture and Usage http://www.judis.nic.in Rules, 1999 for regulating manufacture and sale of plastic carry bags, which was subsequently superseded by The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. Subsequently, the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 was also superseded by virtue of notifying Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 on 18.03.2016 with an intent to regulate the trade and business of manufacturer, importer, stockist, distribution agents, sale and use of carry bags, plastic sheets etc., As per the aforesaid Rules notified on 18.03.2016, the carry bags and plastic packaging shall either be in natural shade which is without any added pigments or made using only those pigments and colourants in conformity with IS 9833 : 1981 titled "list of pigments and colourants for use in plastics in contact with foodstuffs, pharmaceuticals and drinking water" as amended from time to time. Further, as per the Rules, the carry bag made of virgin or recycled plastic, shall not be less than fifty microns in thickness. There are several other stipulations contained in the Rules aimed at regulating and controlling the use of plastic in order to save and protect the environment and to minimise the generation of plastic waste. It is his contention that de-hors the provisions contained under the Rules, Articles 48-A and 51-A of The Constitution of India impose an onerous obligation on the State Government to protect and improve the environment and to take measures to safeguard the forest and wildlife in the Country. It is one of the paramount obligations on the part of the State Government to take all necessary steps to ensure that all adequate steps are taken to protect the ecology. Similarly, Article 51-A (g) which falls under the chapter Fundamental duties of the citizens of India, imposes an obligation on each and every citizens of the Country to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures. Therefore, it is contended that as http://www.judis.nic.in contemplated under Article 48-A of The Constitution of India, it is obligatory on the part of the State to make an endeavour to protect and improve the environment and it is in that direction, the State Government has passed the order, which is impugned in these writ petitions.