SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. Dattu, CJI., Madan B. Lokur and Arjan Kumar Sikri, JJ.
Karuna Society for Animals & Nature - Appellants
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) - Respondent
W.P.(C) Nos. 154 of 2012 and 19/2014
Decided On: 18.11.2014
Constitution of India – Article 32 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Section 5 – Rajasthan Municipality Act, 2009 – Implementation – Municipal Corporations – Prohibiting – Disposal of Plastic Bags – Respondent No. 1 issue appropriate directions to State Government/Municipal Corporation and municipalities to require segregation of all plastic waste across the municipal solid waste collection and disposal counter affidavit filed by the State of Rajasthan, it has been stated that the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 2009 imposes a ban on use of bags less than been stated that successful steps have been taken for implementation of Plastic Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 2011 and that projects for dealing with solid waste are underway. I say that photographs taken in various areas of claim of State of Rajasthan – Held, Respondents do not file any response within two weeks time from today we would direct the Chief Secretaries of each State to be present before us to facilitate us to pass appropriate orders in this regard they are not present before this Court on date of next hearing, we will not hesitate to grant the prayers sought by Petitioners in writ petition – Respondents do not file any response within two weeks time from today we would direct Chief Secretaries of each State to be present before us to facilitate us to pass appropriate orders in this regard – If for any reason they are not present before this Court on date of next hearing we will not hesitate to grant prayers sought by Petitioners in writ petition – Committee should not only formulate ways and means to effectively implement the Rules but also to oversee that these Rules are implemented with all seriousness by the respective stakeholders – Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT
W.P.(C) No. 154 of 2012
1. The present writ petition is filed Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The Petitioners are seeking the following directions, which are as under:-
"(a)(i) the Respondent No. 1 to issue appropriate directions Under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 prohibiting the use, sale and disposal of plastic bags in all municipalities and municipal corporations;
(ii) the Respondent No. 1 to issue appropriate directions to all State Governments and municipalities/municipal corporations to forthwith prohibit and/or to phase out in a time bound manner the "open garbage disposal system" and to remove open garbage receptacles;
(iii) the Respondent No. 1 to issue appropriate directions to State Governments, municipal corporations and municipalities requiring them to implement door to door garbage collection and to ensure that waste storage facilities are built and managed such that animals are not allowed to move around in the vicinity of such facilities;
(iv) the Respondent No. 1 issue appropriate directions to State Government/Municipal Corporation and municipalities to require segregation of all plastic waste across the municipal solid waste collection and disposal chain/systems; and
(v) the Respondent State Governments to issue appropriate directions prohibiting the use, sale and disposal of plastic bags in all municipalities and municipal corporations within their territory.
(vi) the Respondent No. 1 and the 19th Respondent to provide animal shelters, rescue homes and veterinary services for stray cattle to provide amelioration for suffering animals;
(b) award to the Petitioners cost of and relating to the present Petition."
The State of Rajasthan has filed its affidavit and they have made certain averments which are contrary to the writ petition.
2. Further, in rejoinder to the counter affidavit so filed, the Petitioners, insofar as State of Rajasthan is concerned, have stated as under:-
"State of Rajasthan
24. I say that the situation in the State of Rajasthan is also inexcusable. I say that in the counter affidavit filed by the State of Rajasthan, it has been stated that the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 2009 imposes a ban on use of bags less than 20 microns. It has also been stated that successful steps have been taken for implementation of Plastic Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 2011 and that projects for dealing with solid waste are underway. I say that photographs taken in various areas of Udaipur, Jodhpur and Jaipur in the month of February falsify the claim of the State of Rajasthan.
25. The photograph of Pula, near Celebration Mall, Udaipur was taken by Ncha Banyal on 12.02.2014. The photograph for Devi Nagar, Jaipur was taken by Joy Gardner on 16-2-2014. The photograph for Jodhpur was taken by Rajni Ramchandran on 22-2-2014. Photographs for these locations in State of Rajasthan is annexed to the rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the Petitioners as Annexure - R/6 at pages 27 to 29. I say that the striking feature about these photographs is that apart from cattle, these photographs reveal pigs feeding on plastic in search of food. I submit that health hazards of these animals remain absolutely unnoticed to human eye and this is extremely dangerous for animals."
3. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Petitioners, would inform us that though the State of Rajasthan has issued the notification dated 21.07.2010, in exercise of its power Under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act") for banning the manufacture, use, store, import sell or transport plastic carry bags within its territory, with effect from 01.08.2010, nothing seems to have been done by the State in implementing the aforesaid notification.
4. However, the learned Additional Advocate General for Rajasthan, Shri Shiv Mangal Sharma, would submit that the State has been effectively implementing the notification dated 21.07.2010, as issued by them.
5. In order to
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.