Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

All India Plastic Industries Association Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi Department of Forests and Wildlife.

Pays/Territoire
Inde
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Jul 14, 2009
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
High Court of Delhi
Juge
Lokur, M.B.
Pathak, A.K.
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Déchets et substances dangereuses
Mot clé
Recyclage/réemploi Substances dangereuses
Résumé
Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in this Court, concerning the management of plastic waste, which according to him remains in the environment as it is non-biodegradable. The Division Bench hearing the PIL constituted a Committee and on the base of its recommendations,on 7th August 2008, issued the following directions: The respondents Government of NCT of Delhi shall issue a proper notification fixing the minimum thickness of plastic bags at 40 microns in place of 20 microns currently stipulated; shall take immediate steps for closure of unlicensed recycling units operating from non-conforming areas by using unsound methods for recycling of plastic bags; shall issue an appropriate notification forbidding use of plastic bags in the main markets and local shopping centres apart from hotels, hospitals and malls where use of such bags is already forbidden; Government of India shall expedite the constitution of the committee for verifying protocols for degradable and biodegradable plastics in India. The Delhi Government issued a notification dated 7th January, 2009 wherein it was mentioned in Clause (2) that the use, sale and storage of all kinds of plastic bags is forbidden in several generally identified places in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. In Clause (3) of the notification, it was laid down that in places other than those covered by Clause (2), only biodegradable plastic bags could be used. The notification also conferred jurisdiction on several officials to enforce its terms Petitioner No. 1 claiming to be an all India association of manufacturers of plastic bags and other plastic products filed a writ petition in this Court along with Petitioners No. 2 and 3 manufacturers/storers/users sellers of plastic products. Petitioners have challenged the notification dated 7th January, 2009 because, it is submitted that the notification has put them under great hardship and their business has come to a total standstill. According to the petitioners, a total ban on the use of plastics is an arbitrary measure and is not a reasonable restriction either under the provisions of Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) or Article 301 of the Constitution. The firs question arising is whether the writ petition filed by the petitioners should at all be entertained in view of the principles analogous to the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata since the issues raised in this case are similar to the issues raised in an earlier writ petition. In the Court opinion, this writ petition ought not to be entertained. As the petitioners were parties to the previous PIL, if they had any grievance with the conclusions arrived at by this Court, the only appropriate course available for them would have been to either file a review petition in this Court, or to prefer a petition for special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, having entertained this writ petition, which really involves issues of general public importance, the Court has dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioners. The first principal submission was that the procedure given in Rule 4 of the EPR was not followed while issuing the impugned notification dated 7th January, 2009. It is true that the actual physical procedure laid down in Rule 4 of the EPR was not followed by the respondents, but there can be no doubt that the spirit or the sum and substance of Rule 4 was followed, inasmuch as the petitioners had notice of what was likely to happen or what was proposed. The petitioners were given a hearing in respect of that proposed action and the hearing resulted in a decision being taken by this Court, which partly accepted their submissions. The other question is whether on merits, the impugned notification is invalid in law. Applying the tests laid down by the Constitution Bench, it is clear that the limitation on the sale, use and storage of plastic bags in certain areas in Delhi has been laid down keeping in view the problem of solid waste management, particularly of plastic bags, which choke drains and enter the food chain thereby potentially causing health risks. There can be no doubt that the limitations imposed are in public interest and have, apparently, been enforced in several other parts of India also. Merely because some commercial interests of the petitioners are diluted does not mean that there is no public interest in issuing the impugned notification. Therefore, there is no good reason to strike down the impugned notification. The writ petition has been dismissed.
Texte intégral
COU-156255.pdf