HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
RAJIV SHARMA AND V.K.SHARMA, JJ.
SANJEEV KUMAR, Reeta Devi - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P. - Respondents
CWP No. 1732/2010 along with CWP Nos.1885/2010 7033/2010, 4665/2013 and 4675/2013 & 4723/2013
Decided On : December 26, 2013
RAJIV SHARMA, J.-
1. SINCE common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, in order to maintain clarity, facts of all these CWP Nos. 1732/2010, 1885/2010, 7033/2010, 4665/2013 and 4675/2013 and 4723/2013 have been taken into consideration.
2. THE petitioner is an agriculturist by occupation. He owns 35 Kanals of agricultural land. According to the averments contained in the petition, respondent No.2, i.e. Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. has invited tenders for purchase of 14 lacs plastic bottles/pouch packs of Kachhi Ghanni Mustard Oil Agmark Grade-I for supply to its various godowns in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner has only challenged the tender process to the extent inviting tenders of mustard oil in pouch packs in violation of the Himachal Pradesh Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act, 1995. According to reply filed by respondent No.2, the use of plastic pouches for the supply of essential commodities is economical and use of the same is inevitable. It is further averred in the reply that pouch packing is cheaper by Rs.2.29.
The petitioner belongs to family of agriculturists. He is also an agriculturist by profession. He and his family own agricultural land in Village Basaral and the individual land holding of the petitioner is about 35 Kanals. The petitioner has highlighted ill effects of plastic and polythene, i.e. non- biodegradable material on the environment in general and on agricultural activities and domestic animals in particular. According to the petitioner, the respondent-State is remiss in implementing the Himachal Pradesh Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act, 1995 and various notifications issued from time to time by the respondent-State. The first notification was issued by the respondent-State on 26.11.1998, whereby the respondent-State was pleased to impose prohibition on the traders, retailers and vendors in the State of Himachal Pradesh for using the coloured polythene carry bags manufactured from recycled plastic, for packaging the goods traded/sold by them w.e.f. 1.1.1999. The Department of Science and Technology, Government of Himachal Pradesh issued notification No. STE- A(3)-4/2003 dated 4.6.2004 whereby stockists, traders, retailers and vendors within the State of Himachal Pradesh were ordered not to use carry bags made of non-biodegradable material listed in the Schedule to the Himachal Pradesh Non- Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act, 1995 having thickness less than 70 microns and size less than 12" x 18". There was reference to earlier notification dated 26.11.1998. The respondent-State issued another notification dated 7.7.2009 in suppression of earlier notification dated 4.6.2004 whereby it was directed that no person including shopkeepers, vendors, wholesalers, retailers, hawkers, rehriwala etc. shall use plastic carry-bags (irrespective of their sizes and thickness) and plastic items having one time use such as disposable plastic cups, glasses and plates, which are made up of non-biodegradable material as listed in the Schedule to the Himachal Pradesh Non- Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act, 1995. The respondent- State issued another notification dated 13.8.2009 whereby it was notified that ban imposed on carry bags and littering of non-biodegradable waste was to take effect from 2.10.2009 instead of 15.8.2009. The words "plastic waste" mentioned in notification dated 7.7.2009 were substituted by the words " non- biodegradable waste".
3. IT is averred in the petition that the respondent- State has not taken any affirmative action to discourage the use of plastic bags in the shape of pouches etc. which are being used by manufacturers or producers for sale of their products. According to the petitioner, products such as milk, lassi, refined oil, iodized salt, desi ghee, paneer, pulses, gutkas, pan masalas, flour, shamp
MEGH RAJ V. ALLAH RAKHIA AIR 1947 PC 72, LAKHI NARAYAN V. PROVINCE OF BIHAR
CHARANJIT LAL CHOUDHARY V. UNION OF INDIA
STATE OF BOMBAY V. NAROTHAMDAS JETHABHAI
STATE OF W.B. V. SUBODH GOPAL BOSE
ZAVERBHAI AMAIDAS VS. STATE OF BOMBAY
NAVINCHANDRA MAFATLAL V. COMMR. OF I.T.
CH. TIKA RAMJI V. STATE OF U.P.
A. S. KRISHNA V. STATE OF MADRAS
STATE OF BOMBAY V. R. M. D. CHAMARBAUGWALA
RAGHUBIR SINGH V. STATE OF AJMER
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. G. CHAWLA
DEEP CHAND V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
P. N. KAUL V. STATE OF J AND K
CHATURBHAI M. PATEL V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
ATIABARI TEA CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF ASSAM
M/S BURRAKUR COAL CO. LTD. V. THE UNION OF INDIA
CALCUTTA GAS COMPANY (PROPRIETARY) LTD. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
STATE OF W.B. V. UNION OF INDIA
UKHA KOLHE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PALAI V. T. J. JOSEPH
STATE OF ORISSA VS. M.A. TULLOCH AND CO.
HARAKCHAND RATANCHAND BANTHIA VS. UNION OF INDIA
SECOND GIFT TAX OFFICER, MANGALORE VS. D.H. HAZARETH
UNION RT OF INDIA V. H. S. DHILLON
UNION RT OF INDIA V. H. S. DHILLON
J. AND K. STATE V. M. S. FAROOQI
J. AND K. STATE V. M. S. FAROOQI
KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PRODUCE COMPANY LTD. VS. THE STATE OF KERALA
BAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH V. STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER
CONCURRENT LIST : BAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH V. STATE OF U.P.
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD V. INDIAN ALUMINIUM. COMPANY
M/S. FATEHCHAND HIMMATLAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
STATE OF KARNATAKA V. SHRI RANGANATHA REDDY
M. KARUNANIDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA
ISHWARI KHETAN SUGAR MILLS (P) LTD. VS. STATE OF U.P.
SOUTHERN PHARMACEUTICALS AND CHEMICALS TRICHUR VS. STATE OF KERALA
T. BARAI V. HENRY AN HOE AND ANR.
T. BARAI V. HENRY AH HOE AND ANOTHER
SEE: M/S. HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS VS. STATE OF BIHAR
M/S. HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. STATE OF BIHAR
LINGAPPA POCHANNA APPELWAR V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
INDIAN CEMENT LTD. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
VIJAY KUMAR SHARMAAND OTHERS V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
RAGHU SEEDS AND FARMS VS. UNION OF INDIA
STATE OF A.P. VS. MCDOWELL AND CO.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. VATAN MEDICAL AND GENERAL STORE
ITC LTD. VS. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHAH GOVERDHAN L. KABRA TEACHERS COLLEGE
T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND SHRI KRISHSNA GYANODAY SUGAR LTD. AND ANR. VS. STATE OF BIHAR
A.R.P. MAHARASHTRA VS. RANJIT P. GOHIL
WELFARE ASSOCIATION,A.R.P.,MAHARAHSTRA AND ANR. VS. RANJIT P. GOHIL AND ORS.
STATE OF M.P. VS. KEDIA LEATHER AND LIQUOR LTD.
HINDUSTAN LEVER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD VS. STATE OF ASSAM
M. KARUNANIDHI (SUPRA) AND STATE OF WEST BENGAL V. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS
M.P. VIDYUT KARAMCHARI SANGH V. M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD
ASSOCIATION OF NATURAL GAS VS. UNION OF INDIA
STATE OF HARYANA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB
PUNJAB DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD VS. CEPHAM MILK SPECIALITIES LTD.
GUJARAT V. MIRZAPUR MOTI KURESHI KASSAB JAMAT
KARNATAKA BANK LTD. STATE OF AP
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. BHARAT SHANTI LAL SHAH
M.C.MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. VS. MAHABIR VEGETABLE OILS PRIVATE LIMITED
K.K. BASKARAN VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,TAMIL NADU
STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. VS. ASHOK KUMAR DANGI AND ORS
K.T. PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA
MOHD. MURTAZA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
STATE OF KERALA VS. MAR APPRAEM KURI COMPANY LTD.
GANDHI IRWIN SALT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
K.M. VIJAYAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
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.