Rainbow Polymers & Ors v. Govt. of NCT Delhi

MADAN B. LOKUR, J t* July 14,2009 ncg Certified that the corrected copy of the judgment has been transmitted in the main Server. .'q- , {'6 \ tv"?'"o'l "0 WP (C) No.882/2009 N*"t+- A.K. PATHAK, J lllcll COLlItT Olt Dlll,lll : NliW Dlrll,lll Writ Pctition (Civil) No. llll3 ol'2009 & CNt 4355120119 .fudgnrcnt roscrvccl rln: N4ay2l-2Q0-2 Juclgmcnt clclivclccl on: July 14.2009

¶1All India Plastic lrrdustrios Association through its Sccrctary Shri Ajay Gupta S/o Slrri 'lt.N. (iupta Agcd about 40 ycars having its llcad Ofircc at 203, I lansa'l'orvcr' 25, Ocntral Malkct Ashok Vihat', I'hasc-I I)clhi '- I 10 052 Mr. llhupcsh l{alli Agcd about 37 ycars S/o Slrri J.P. Italli (iupta Plastic Inc[istrics 36, Sanclcsh Vihar Pitarnpura, Dolhi Mr. I{adhcy Shyam (iL4rta Agcd about 64 ycars S/o lal.c Shri O.P. (iupta (iupta Plastic lndLrstrics 36, Sanclcsh Vihar Pitaurpura, I)clhi . ...|)ctitioncrs Mr. Sandccp Scthi, Sr. Advocatc rvith Mr. Sidharth Singhal ancl Mr. Niklril Jlhalla. Adr,ocatcs 'J'lrrough Vcrstrs WP (C) No.883/2009 Ituge I ol'37 l\r t + 0//tl

2.

¶3-,t (iovornurcnt oi' NC f ol' I)clhi I)cpartrncnt of liorcsts & Wildlitb 2"" Floor, 'A' Illock, Vikas Jlhawatr Ncu, Dclhi ...llcsp.uclc't (^ \\) Corarn: IION'I}I,Ii MR. JI]STICI' MAI)AN I}. I,OKI.JII IION'I}1,II MI{. .ITJSTICI' A.K. PATIIAK

¶1Whcthcr the ltcpctrtcls of local papot's lnay bc allowcd ttl scc thc judgmcnt'i

¶2'lo bc rcfcrrcd to l{cportcr or ttot'/

¶3Wticthcr thc judglncnt shoulcl bc lcportccl . in thc l)igcst'/ M 'fhrotrgh Mr. Parag l). 'l'ripathi, AS(i u'ith Ms. I{rrchi Sinclltrvani, Ms. Akauksha . Sharura aud Mr. Arncy Nargtllkar, Aclvocatcs Mr. Arvind Salr, Advocatc ltll tho lntcrvcnor in CM 435512009 Ycs Yos Ycs 'I'hrcc clncstions arisc lor our cotisiclcration in this casc. l;irstly, on thc prclirninary slrbtnissiou ol-tho loarllod Additional Solicitor Gcncral whotlicr thc writ potition lilcd by thc I'}otitioncrs shoglcl at all bc cntcrlaincd in vicw of thc principlos analogotts to thc principlos of rr:s judicata or crlnstructivc rcs jutlicutn sinco thc issttcs WP (C) No.883/2009 I'uge 2 of'37 raisocl in this cilsc iu'c similar to thc issucs raisccl itr au carlicr writ pctition. In our opinion, this rvrit pctil.ion otrght not l"tt bc cntct'tirinctl fbr thc rcason cnnvassccl by thc lcarucd Additional Solicitor (ioncral. Adclitionally, in this casc wo irrc callcd npon to collatorally dcciclc thc corrcctncss of thc dccision takon irr thc cat'licr writ pcti{"ion, whiclr is uot ncrnrissiblc on thc facts and in thc circumstauccs narratocl hcrcin bclorv. 'l-hc sccclnd clucstion f or considoration is u'hcthcr thc prinoiplcs ol' natural justicc cnshrincd in ltule 4 ol'thc Ijtrvirclntnotrt (|rotcction) Itulcs, 1986 havc bccn aclhorccl kl by thc L{cspondcnts lvhilc issr.ring thc impugnocl n<ltification clatccl Tttt Jatrltary, 2009. ln orll 6pitriotr, thc answcr to this is in thc afflnnativo, silrcc thc spirit ol'thc law ancl thc prclccclnrc has bccn followccl, thortgh not uccossarily thc rcstrictivc lcttcr of thc law. No prcjudicc has boou cetttscd to tho Pctitioncrs in this rcspcct. I'hc thircl qucstion is whcthcr ott tncrits, tl'rc impugncd notilication datod 7'l' January,2009 is invalicl in law. Ottr answct'ttl this clucstiorr is in thc ttcgativc. I'hc hackground lacts Onc Mr. Vinod Krrnar.lain filocl a Ptrblic Itrtcrcst l,itigittion WP (q No.883/2009 I'uge 3 ol 37 lb, -4" (Pll,) in this Court pairrling a grirn pictr.rc of thc lailurc by thc civic l^ agcncics in Dclhi to cflbctivoly managc solicl watstc.' On" o['thc issttos L / raisccl by Mr. .Jarin c<lnccrncd thc lrlanargcltlcnt ol'plastic wustc, whir:h according to him romains in thc cnviroumcrrt as it is ttotr-bioclcgraclablc. It is saicl. to cntcr tlic food chain rcsulting in hoalth risks. 'l'hc disposal of plastic wastc in strcaurs, oanals, watcr boclics ctc. ctlnrpouttcls tho problcrn causcd to thc cnvironmcnt.

¶2Appatcntly, with a vicw to assisL thc (lourt in issuing appropriatc diroctions, thc l)ivision lJcnoh hcaring thc Pll, ctlrrstitutcd a Comnrittcc hcadccl by Justicc I{.C. Chopra, a rctit'cd judgc of tlris Court as its Oonvcncr, with thc Chairman of thc Ccnttal l'}olh.rtion (]ontrol Iloard and thc Chairrnan oI thc l)clhi Polluti<ln Control Conrmittcc as its Mcmbcrs. Scvcn qucstions worc posocl lor thc cousidcratiou of'thc Committcc ancl thc Rcport given by it in rcspcct of cach clucstion is as lbllows: Qucstion: Whcthcr plastic bags arc pcr-sc in.iurious ttl hcalth tlr h:rzardous to thc cnvironmcnt? Itoport: Virgin plastic bags arc nclt pcl sc injurious to hcalth ol I Vinorl Kurnar Jairr v. lJnion of Tntlia & ols. Wl'](C) No. 6.t56l04 tlccitled on 7"' r\rrgrrst, 2.008. WP (C) No.8<\3/2009 I'uge 4 o.l'37 hazarclous to thc cnvironmcnt but rccyclcd/colourcd bags alc irtjr.rrioLrs. 'I'hcrclorc, a blankct bati on tho usc of plastic lrags is not c;allccl lilr'. Qucstion: Whcthcr dcgradablc/biodcgradablc plastic bags arc an altcrnative and can bc introduccd lvithout any dilliculty? I{oport: I}i<ldcgradablc plastics atc in its nasccnt stagc and rcscarclt lvork is on lor tlic clcvclopurcnt of appropriatc typcs oL bitlclcgl'adablo plastics. It canuot bc said that dcgraclablc plastics clo nclt posc ally lrcaltlr or cnvironmcntal hazard. l.hcsc do not clccotrrposo rrattrrally ou account of action of micro-organism. ISioclogradablc plastics howcvcr, arc rnaclc ol natr"rral substiurccs ancl clccotlposc through rnicrobial actiort. 'l'hcrclilrc, bioclcgradablc plastics shoulcl trc cncortragccl for thc manufacturc ancl usc of plastic bags. Qucstion: Whethcr bags madc oI othcr mirtcrials can substitutc plastic bags and mcct thc dcmand? Itoport: 'l'hc usc ol-plastic bags camot bc withdrawn tlr ltanttccl cornplctcly in Dclhi but othcr alternal.ivcs can trc cncout'agccl ancl plopagatcd which may rcsult in rochrcing thc dctnancl/Lrsc of plastic bags. 'l'hc chrios ancl problcm crcatcd by thc uso o['plastic bags is prirnalily bccalrsc oJ' rvnstc gcnoratccl by plastic bags u,hich trcccls cl'ficicnt hanclling by thc auLlroritics as wcll as by thc Plasl"ic Manulacturcrs' WP (Q No.BB3/2009 Pugc 5 ol'37 tv Assooiatiou. Qucstion: What arc thc cxisting laws to rcgulatc thc usc ol'plastic bags in l)clhi? Il.oport: 'l-hc Dclhi I)cgraclablc Plastic Ilag (Manltfitctttrc, Salc ancl tJsagc) and Garbagc (Control) Act, 2000 rcacl rvith thc l)lastic Manr.rfactircr, Salc ancl lJsagc ltulcs, lggg, as aurcndocl Jrom timc to tirnc, ploviclcs that virgin or t'ecycled plastic lrags shoulcl bc of'a tlrickncss not lcss tlian 20 microns and oL a sizc uot loss thittr tJ" x 12". 'l'hc thickncss of plastic bags shor.rld bc incrcascd to 40 microns. J"ho cxisting ban on use of plastic bags in sonro institutions suclt as itr lor.rrlfivo star hotols, hospitals with 100 bcds or n'roro, rostaurants witlr a scating ol'morc thari'100 cto. is not ollcctivcly'onfotcccl. Sincc tlic ban in thcsc institutions takcs carc of'a snrall porccntagc oL plastic bags, tltc rnaxirmun consumption thcrcof bcing tlrrotrgh rnain nrarkcts, local shopping ccntrcs, small shopkccpcrs and stroct vcndots, thc ban shoulcl bc cxtondccl to thcm also. Qucstion: Whcthcr rccycling o1'the plastic bags wastc is a hcalth/ environmcnthazard? Itcport: lJnsouncl rccycling practiccs pcrtaining to plastics alc a sclious hcalth / cnvironmcntal hazarcl ancl thosc rvho violaLc thc provisiorrs <ll-WP (C) No.(9<93/2009 l'uge 6 ql' j7 law in this rcgard shoulcl bc dcalt with vcry strictly. Qucstion: What arc the maior hcalth or cnvil'on,".ntnl haz'ards arising rtut of thc use of plastic bags? Ilcport: l'hc usc only of vilgin plastio bags rvhich arc trausluccttt ancl ol' nrlrc thzur 40 microns thiokncss sh<luld bc cnc<luragcd and this sh<lrrld takc carc oJ. most of thc hcalth hazards particularly sinco thcsc ckl uot contain any hannful aclditivcs ancl can bc casily idsntified by rag pickcrs for rocycling purposcs. Qucstion: what stcps can bc takcn to chcck thc hcalLh and cnvironmcnt ltaznrds arising out ol usc of plastic bags in Dclhi? Itoport: Thc Committcc gavc as rnany as twolvc l'ccolttltlcndatious, but it is not ncccssaly to rcproclnco all oi thotu ior thc pLllposcs ol' this clccision.

¶3Sufficc it to sirY, thc l)ivision llcrrch hcaring thc I']ll. gcrrcrally acccptccl thc rccommcnclations of thc Comntittcc ancl issucd thc iollorving dircctions in its llnal orclcr ciatcd 7tl'Augrtst, 200[l: "i) 'I'hc rcspondcnts (]ovcrnrlrcnt of NC'l' o1'l)clhi shall issuc a propor notifioation hxing tho rnininlrm thickttcss ol plastic bags at 40 microns in placc oI 20 urictons crtrrontly stipulatcd.

ii) I'hc rcsponclcnts, (iovorntncnt oI J)clhi, tltc [)ollrrtion WP (C) Nrt.883/2009 l'uga 7 ol'37 ry I ' .t- "t\ Control Cotnmittcc of l)clhi ancl thc civic agoncics shall titl<c ,o\ irnnrcdiatc stcps lbr closurc o[' unliccuscd rccycling trnits ?l opcrating frotn non-conlbrrning arcas by Llsillg ttustlttucl V ' ,/ mcthocls for rccycling of plastig bags. /

iii) Govornmcnt of India shall cxpcditc thc constitr.rtion of l"hc comrnittcc tbr vcrifying protoools lclr cloglatlatrlc attcl bioclcgradablc plastiqs in lndia il' thc satuc has uot alrcady bccn donc.

iv) (]ovcmnrcnt of NC'I' ol. Dclhi shall issr.rc an appropriatc notification folbidcling r"rsc of' plastic bags in thc tlrititr rnatkcts and local shopping cclttrcs apart Licltn hotcls, hospitals and malls whcrc rtsc of stroh trags is alrcady I'olbiddcn.

v) Thc othcr rccomrncndations rolcrrcd to in thc rcport urado by thc Cornrnittcc appointcd by this Oor.rrt ancl cxtractccl abovc shall bc cxatnincd by thc (iovcmmcnt oi NC'[ oI J)clhi as arlso thc civio agcncics and appropriatc aotions takcn in arcoordance with law whorcver sltclt rccotntlctrclatiolls aro frlr"rnd I'casiblc." (

¶4Subscqncrit kl thc clccision rcnclctccl by tliis Ctlurt, thc Dclhi (iovcrnmcnt issucd aclvcrtiscmcnts iu ncwspapcrs discttltraging thc usc oi plastic bags aud a list Of "t'ttust clo" by collsulllcrs, Lctailcrs, manufactrtrcrs, rccyclcrs, aitpot'ts, malls, tailways, Lasl. [tlocl ccntrcs ctc. lrollowing up on this publicity blitz, tho Dclhi (iovcrntncnt isstrccl a notification datccl 7'l' January,2009 whcrciu it was nontionod in clatrso

(2) thctcclf that thc uso, sarlc and storagc of all kinds ol'plastic bags is Jorbiddon scvoral gcnorally idcntifiod placcs in tho National Oapital t|/P (C) No.883/2009 I'uge 8 o./' j7 ln ,'lt I'crritory of Dclhi. In clausc (3) of tho notification, it 'uvas laicl tlorvn that in placcs othcr than thosc covcrccl by clausc (2), only bioclcgradablc plastic bags r:ould bc uscd. Thc notilicatiotr alstl oonfbrrcd jurisdictitln cln scvoral officials to cnforcc its tcrurs.

¶5'Ihc notification clatocl 7'r' January,2009 rcacls as jilllorvs: ..NO'I'IFI(]A'I-ION l)atcd 7tr' .lanuarv. 2009 In cxcroisc of thc powcrs cotrlbn'cd by Scction 5 of'tho Ilnvironmcnt (Protcction) Act, l9tl6 rcad rvith notilication No.U-l 1030/J/9I-UTI,, datcd l0-9-l 992'and in compliartcc . of thc IIorr'blc IIigh Court of I)clhi's orclcr datcd 7"'Attgttst, 200U in WP(C) No.6456 ot2004, tho Licutcnarnt (iovcruor ol' National Capital 'fcffitory oI Dclhi horctry tlitccts thc followinri: ,."rn^t. thc usc, salc ancl storagc of all kincls o{'plastic bags shall bc forbiddcn in rcspcot of thc lollowing placcs in thc National Capital l'crritory of I)clhi, uatncly:- Irivc Star aucl liour Star Ilotcls. ilospitgls with 100 ol' lnorc bocls oxccpt for tho Lrso oI plastic bags its prcsoritrccl rtuclor Jlio Mcdical Wastc (Managctucnt and llandling) Itulcs, l99tt.

(c) All rcstatu'atits and cating plaocs having soating capacity oImorc than 50 scats.

(d) All li'uit and vcgctablc outlcts of Mothor Dairy.

(c) All liquor vcnds. WI' (C) No.883/2009 l'ugc 9 of'37

(a)

(b) I h9 - ). (D All shopping Malls.

(g) All shops iu tnaiu uratkcts and looal shopping ocnt[cs. 0t) All rctail ancl r.vholcsalc orrtlcts ol lJranclccl chailt of outlcts sclling diflcrcnt constlulcr prodtrcts incluciing fnrits ancl vcgctablcs.

¶3In placc othcr tltau thc alorosaid placcs ancl as obscrvcd by the lTon'trlc tligh Court of f)clhi only llio-dcgraclablc plastic bags shall bc usccl. 'l-he f'ollowing oflicels shall itlrplcrnotrt tlrcsc ordcls itr thcir rcspcctivc jLrrisdiction nntncly:-

¶1Mctnbcl Scctctary, I)clhi l)ollution Oontrol Corlmittoc and its stai[.

¶2J)ircotol J'lnvir<lnmont, aucl stall oL Jinviroutncttt T)cpt. (iovt. of-Dclhi. '

¶3Additional Divisional Magistratcs in thcir rcspcctivc clistriot.

¶4Sub-Divisional Magistratcs in thcir rcspcctivc ' juriscliction.

¶5Ilnvironmcntal Iinginccrs, Dclhi Pollution Oontrol (lotmnittcc in thoir rcspcctivc jurisdicti<ln. (t. Asstt. Cotnmissioltct' (ltl,), Municiltal Corporation of I)clhi. l. Fo<ld and Supply Ollicors, in thcir rcspcctivc jtu'isdiction.

¶8Mcdical Officor llcalth, NJ)MC.

¶9Dircctol I loalth Sorvicos, (lovotntnont of National Callital'l'crritory oI l)clhi.

¶10Municipal llcalth Olliccr, MCI). 1 1. Iiclocl lnspcctors o1 I'liA l)opat'tntcltt, (]ovcrruur:nt of National Capital 'l'crritory of Dclhi. WP (q No.883/2009 l'jugc l0 o.l'37 -l-

¶4Mcurbcr Sccrctary, l)clhi Polltrtion Oontrol Cotumittco sl'rall aot as thc ctl-orclinator tO itnplctlcnt thc abovc clrclors. Thc Chainnan aucl Mcmbcr Sccrctary of tho. I)clhi Pollution (lontrol Cotnmittcc arc attthorizccl to lodgc thc complaiut undor Scotion 19 tlf' thc litlvirouulcnt (I'rotcction) Act, 19t16 viclc notificatiotr No.S.O.394(ll) datcd 16-4-1981 as lirrthcr atnonclod vidc notilication No.S.O.624(li) datcd 3-9-I 996.

¶5This is in slqrcrscssion oI thc (iovcmurcnt of I)cllri's carlicr notifi cation no.F. 8 ([l 6)/l']A/llnv . I 200 5 (i1) I 486, clatccl thc 2ntt Jutrc, 2005 atrd notifjcatiorr No.F. 8 (8(r)/liA/Iil,./ 200 5 I 450, datccl tlt c 2 5'r' May, 200 (r'

¶6l'his notilication shall comc itrto fcx'oc u'ith cff cct Iklrn thc clay it is notilicd in thc OUioial (iazottc. Ily Ordcr arxl in thc Namc oI thc Lt. (iovcrnor of thc National Capital 'l'orritory ol'I)clhi, sd/- (Suslima Jcrath) J)y. Sccy. No.F. 0 ti (ti 6)/liA/linv . 12008 I 9 47 3 Issucd by: Govcrnmcnt of thc National Capital 'I.'cr-ritory of J)clhi Dcpaflmcnt of l}rvironmcnt ancl liorcst and Wild l.ifb N-owlglbi."

¶6A pcnrsal of thc notilication rcvcals that it ltas lrcctt issuocl in cxcrcisc of powcrs conJbrrcd by Scction 5 oJ' thc llnvirorrtlctrt (protcction) Act, t9ti6 (for short thc liPA) rcacl u,ith a (iovortrtncttt o1' lnclia notification (on whioh thcrc is no clisputc) ancl in cotnltliaucc with WI'(C) No.883/2009 l'ugc I I o/'37 ?q ;. I thc orclcrs oI this Court in thc Pll, initiatcd bv Mr. .lain. I'hc subrnissions:

¶1Pctitioncr No.l claiming to bc an all Inclia associatiou oL ruanufacturors of plastic bags and othcr plastic prodLrots lrlcd a writ pctition in this Court along with Pctitionors No.2 ancl 3. I'ctitioncr Ntt. I clairns to rcprcscrrt tnorc than 1,500 rcgistcrcd mctnbct's on al1 all Inclia basis. Pctitioners No. 2 and 3 arc said to bc manuJircturcrs/st<lrors/Ltscrs scllcrs oL plastio products. 'l'hcsc Pctitiouors havc challcngccl thc rrol.ification clatccl 7tl'Jernuar-y,2009 bocnusc, it is sr.rbrtrittod [hat thc notilication has put thcrl undcr-gtcat har:clship and thcir busirtoss ltas coulc to a total standstill. According to thc l.)ctitioncrs, a total batt ou thc usc of plastics is an arbitrary mcasurc and is trot a rcasonatrlc rcstriction oithcr unclcr tho provisions of Artiolc l4 or Articlc l9(l)(g) 'or Artir:lc 301 ol tho Constitution. tl. 'l'hcrc is rio clisputc that thc powor to iisuc tho notificatiorr is availablc with thc I{csponclcnts undcr Soctiorr 5 <ll-thc liI'A but lcarttccl counscl Ibr thc Pctitionols sr.rbmittcd that this powor ltas to bc cxorciscd in accorclancc with tlrc linvironrncnt ([)rotccl"ion) l{trlcs, l9tl6 (lor short l4/P (C) No.B.93/2009 l'uge l2 oJ'37 { { t n thc IiPl{). ln this contcxt, it was sr-rbmittccl that thc l{cs1>ondcnts havoCJql o" not followccl thc ruanclatory proccclurc prcscritrccl rtttclor tlrc IIPII ancl, / thcrcloro. thc notification is not vaUd. 'Ihc sccortcl sr.tburissitlrl oJ' lcarnccl oounscl u,as that tho Pctitioncrs havo no cliflrcrrlty rvitlr cliroctitlu No. (i), (ii), (iii) ancl (v) abovc br.rt insohr as clit'cctiol No. (iv) is conccrncd, it has bccn issucd by thc carlict' Division Ilcncli on a l.actttal misconccption.. Iior undcrstanding this coutcution oJ'lcatrtrocl coltnscl, direction No. (iv) is ortcc again lcptodttocd: "iv) (iovcrntncnt of NC'f of Dclhi shall issuc an appt'opriatc notification I'orbidding use o{' plastio bags in the tlaitr lnalkcts and local shopping ccntrcs apart ltonl hotcls, hospitals and malls lvltcrc usc ol' such bags is alrcady lbrbiddcn." (cuphasis sLrppliccl).

¶9Accorcling kl lcarnccl counscl lbr thc Pctitiorrcts, tltc ttsc o[ plastio bags in hotcls, hospitals arnd malls is not filrbiddcn. What is frlrbicldon in thcsc placcs is thc nsc of tton-dcgradatrlc plastic bags. lt is slbmittccl that thc conclusicln of this Colrrt that "wltcrc ttsc ol'strch bags is alrcacly klrbiddon" is partially inaccuratc what is forbicldcn is tlro r.rsc oI'uon-dogradablc plastic bags and not all plastic bags. llt sttpport of this asscrtion, rcliancc is placcd upon tr.vo notilicatiotrs clatccl 2"'l Junc, 2005 ancl 25'r' May, 200(t issucd by thc (iovcrtrttrcnt ol' Dclhi WI' (C) No.8,93/2009 I'ugt: I 3 ol'37 whicli plovidc that thc usc of dcgraclablc lllastic lrags shall bc compulsory in thc following institulions. ln othor worcls, thc r"tsc tlf notr-dcgraclablc plastic bags is forbiddcn in thcsc plttccs, that is fl

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d) (") (D Lll 415 star hotcls catcgorizcd as suoh by thc Dcpartnlcnt oL 'fourism, (iovcrnurcut of ludia, All hospitals having bcd strcngth of 100 bccls or morc, All rcstaurants hewing seatirig capacity of'tlotc than 50 scats, All food and vcgctablc outlcts of Mothcr I)airy, All liquor vcnds, and Al1 slropping rnalls. It r.vzrs sr.rbmittcd that sincc thc lligh Court proccoclod <ln a t0 - partialty irrcorroct assumption that all plastio bags (both dcgraclablc ancl lon-clcgraclablc) arc lolbiddcn in thcsc institlrtions, thcrclorc, clirccting cxtcnsi<ln <lL thc ban t6 othcr institr.rtions/aroas ol'l)clhi is orroncorts. il. I-hc lcatrrcct Aclclitional Solicitor' (icncral appcaring on bohalf of thc ltospondcnts rcfutcd thc various subrnissious tnadc by lcarnccl counscl lbr thc Pctitioncrs. Ilc also raisccl a prcliminary objoctitln to tho offcct thitt thc Pctitioncrs wcrc fully rcprcscntccl in thc Pll. tlclorc this CoLrrt (tl:r'ough otrc Mr. O.P. t{atra). 'I'hoy ciutttot uorv bc pcrmittotl kl WP (Q No.883/2009 l'uge l4 ol'37 challcngo (hc notifioation clatccl 7"' January, 2009 rvhich r.vzts isst"tccl in coinpliance with thc dircotions givcn by this (lotrrl" in tlrc J'.11.. lt is appropriato to first dcal with thc prcliminary objcctitln raisccl by thc lcarncd Aclclitional Solicitor (icncral. Prcliminarry submission of thc llcspondcnts:

¶12Wc find from tho rccorcl of tlio Pil, that otrc Mr. O.l'. ltatra hacl movccl an intcrvcntion application in tho ['11,. A pcrtrsal o{ that application rcvcals that Mr. I{atra clairus to havc bccu cngagcd in thc clcvclopmcnt and promotion of applications oL plastics sitrco l9(r5. IIt: says that ho has sclvccl in various dcpartmcnts of thc (iovorntnont of India as 'wcll as in various tcchnical committoos oto. Ilc citcs his various acootltplishrncnts and concludcs his application by submitting that plastio bags alc tcclrnically and cnvirontncntally saf-c ancl tlral-hc is painccl t<l noticc that unjustifiablc publicity is givon against plastic bags in complcto variaucc rvith thc provisiotts <lf thc law. .j

¶13Wc also find from thc rcoorcl oi thc PI[, that allcr this Oourt rcnclcrcd its docision, Mr. I{atra lilcd a rcvicw application in thc writ pctition in which hc dcscribcd himsclf as a fouudcr tncurbor of Plastics Wt' (C) No.883/2009 Pqe I 5 o.l'37 fr, Chintak. t4. .'I'hc lcarncd Additional Solicitor (lorroral sLrbnrittccl bcfilrc Lrs that his instruc;ting connscl madc a soarch ou thc itttcrnct to dotcrrniuc thc idcntity of Plastics Chintak. As a rcsult of l"hat scaroh, sonlc tnatcrial was collcctccl and that has bccn placcd on rccorcl. Iirotn thcsc documonts, it has coll'lo to bc knowtr that Mr. I{atra is tho Sccrctary o[' I)lastios Ohintak, which is a lirnun of' All lnclia l)lastio Inclusl.t'ics Assor:iation and All lnclia Iicdcration of I'lastic lndustrics. I)lastics Chintak is intcndcd to crcatc awarcncss that plastics arc ouvironnrcutally safc and eco-fiienclly, that plastic bags atc osscntial ancl an integral patl. of our daily lifc and plastics cannot bc baruccl cornplctcly rvithout providing chcap ancl acccptablc altcrnativcs.

¶15It mav trc notccl that onc oi thc two cotrstitucnts of f'lastics Cliintak is All India I']lastic Industrics Associatiou, rvhioh is l)ctitionot No.l in tlic writ pctition tliat wc arc oouoomccl with. 'fhc addrcss ol' Plastics Chintak as displr.rycd on thc intcmct is r:/o All lnclia Plastir: Industrics Association, 203, Ilansa Towcr, 25, Cctrttitl Markct, Aslrol< Vihar, Phasc-I, Dclhi and this is thc saulc ils tho addrcss of'Pctitioncr Wl) (C) No.883/2009 l'ugc l6 ol 37 n No.l. 'fhc subrnission of lcamccl Aclclitional Solicitor (icncral in this rcgarcl rvas that although thc Pctitioncrs in thc casc lrclilrc us rnay nol havc dircctly bccn partics in thc I'11,, but thcy wcrc cortainly rcprcscutcd, or at lcast thoir point of vicw was cot-tainly pLrt ltlrth by Mr. I{atra, rvlro patticipatccl in thc irrocccclings bclorc tlrc Justicc Ohopra (lonrnrittcc, intcrvcncd in thc PIL and also filcd a rcvicw pctitiou in this C'ourt. It was, thorclbrc, subrnittcd that it is too latc in thc day lor tltc Potitioners to contcnd that thcy woro ttot hcard bclilrc thc abovcmcntionccl dircctiorrs wcrc isstrcd by this Court or that thcir ltoint of vicw wits not availablc rvith tlio l)clhi (iovcrtrtncnt whctr tho rroti fi cation clatccl 7tl' January, 2009 rvas issrted. r6. Lcarncd counscl lbr thc Pctitioncrs clicl not rclirtc thc fhctLral subrnission oi. thc lcar-ncd Additional Solicitor (lcncral about thc iclcnl"ity oI Mr'. I{atra or l'ris assooiation with Pctitionct No.1 or cvcn tlrc conncction bctrvcon Plastic;s Chintak and Pctititlncr No. l. Wo, thcrclorc, havc no opti<ltr but t<l proccecl on thc basis that Mr. I{atra is intcgrally conncctcd with Plastios Cliintak as tncntionccl by hiur in tho I'IL and that Plastics Chintak is a fonrm rvhich has Pctitionot'No. I as onc of its constitucnts. Wc nrust alscl procood otr thc basis that sirrcc WI' (() No.,9,93/2009 l'u;ga 17 r2l 37 <) Potitioncr No.l has an all India rcach, tho point of vicw o{'trll plastic4 \ )\ rnannf-acturcrs in Inclia was roptcscntccl by Mr. J{atra in tho ['l[,. t7 What is thc cunulativc cll'cot of this'J As f tu' eIS wo citu soc, thc cntirc PIL was hcard ancl dcciclccl 'uvith thc activc participatiotr ol'tlrc plastic indr-rstry and manufacturcrs of plastic. Not only this, thcir vicrv was also placcd bcforc thc .lusticc Chopra Committcc, which took itrto consiclcration the opinion of thc plastic indr,rstry attcl tuatttlitcturcrs ol' plastio ancl only thcn subnrittcd il"s I{cport- 'fhis (loult clclivcrcd judgrnont in thc PIL only allcr hcaring all conccrncd partics, inclLrcling Mr. I{atra. In csscnoc, thercl'orc, the Pctitioncrs wcrc pirttics to tlrc l'}][, and iJ'thcy had airy gricvancc with thc conchrsions arrivccl at by this Oourt, thc only erppropriatc coursc availablo lor thcrn r,r'ould havo bccn to cithcr fils a rcvicrv pctition in this Cor"rrt (r.vhich thcy did through Mr. Itatra), or to ptcfcr a pctition for spccial loarrc to appcal in thc Srtprctnc (-'<lr"rrt. lU. Ily filing ern indcpcnclcnt rvrit pctition, thc I'ctitioncl's aro inviting r.rs to sit in judgmcnt ovcr thc dcoision rcndcrccl by anothor J)ivision lScnch of this Court. Wc sirnply cetnnot clo this, Itor calt wc, W' (C) No.B83/2009 l'rya I<\ ol'37 t -.) -t t withorrt auy valicl tcascln, doLrbt tho cotrclttsiotrs arrivocl at by ^ l]jh, coordinatc lJcuch. -r/

¶19In Govt. of A.P. v. Ii. SatyunuruJ,tur& Rutt, (2000) 4 SCC 262 it was saicl: "A dccision by two Judgcs has a binding olfr:ct ou auothct oooldinatc llcnch ol' two Judgcs, unlcss it is dcnronstratccl that thc said clccision by any subscqncnt chaugc in law or dccision ccilscs to laying down a corlcct ltlw."

¶20It nright havc bccn a conrplctcly dil'fbrcnl story il'rvc dicl not rrgrcc with thc conclnsions arrivcd at by thc catlicr J)ivisi<ln lJcnch. In that cvcnt, wc could havc rcfcrcd thc tnattcr to a largcr JJcnch, bttt no such sutrmission was rnaclo.

¶21In Vijuy f,u-rmi Sadho (Dl v. .lugdish,(2001) 2 SCC 247 it was said: "As thc lcat'ncd Singlc Judgc was uot itt agrcctncnt with tlrc vicr.v cxprcssccl tn Devilal cuse ll)cvilal v. Kinkar Nanttacla Praserd, Illcction Pctition No. 9 oI l9U0l it would liatvc bccn propcr, to tnaiutain jr.rdicial clisr:iplinc, to rclbr thc tnattcr to a largcr Jlcnr:h rathor than to takc a dillbront vior'v. .... It is wcll-scttlod that if a Jlcnch ol' coordinatc jurisdictitln clisagrecs with anothcr Jlcncli of coorclinatc jurisdiction whcthcr on thc basis of "dillbrcnt algumcnts" or otltcrwisc, on a qucstion of law, it is appropriatc that tho tuattor bc WP (q No.883/2009 l'>uge l9 ol'37 ,.) -f rolbrrccl to a largcr llcnch lilr rcsolr-rtiou ol'tltc issuc rathcr /^\ tlrarn to lcavc two conflicting judgtucttts trl t4toratc, crcatiltg '?/ confusion. It is nof propcr to sactificc ccrl"aiuty o[' law. Juclioial dooorurn, no lcss than lcgal propricty fcrnns tho basis oI judicial proccdurc and it tnust bc rcspcctcd at all r:tlsts."

¶22Sirnilarlv. in Muhudeolul l{unotlia v. Administrutor Generul oJ'West llengul, (1960) 3 .SCn 578 iL was said: "]Jc1brc wc part with this appcal, ltorvovor, it is our duty ttl rclbr to ono incidcntal mattcr. Wc havc notiocd with solllo rcgrct that when thc earlicr dooision ol'tr.vo judgcs o{'tlre sanrc Iligh Courl in l)eo llctjun's Ou,sc l5tt CWN 641 was citcd bcforo thc lcancd Jr.rdgcs who hcarcl tlrc pt'csr:nt appcal they took on thcrnsclves to say that tho prcvious clccision rvas wrong, instcail of following thc usual proccclurc in casc o[' dillbrcncc of opinion with an carlior clccisiou, of rclbrring thc qtrcstion to a largcr lJcnch. Juclicial docorutl tto lcss tltan lcgal propricty forms tho basis oI' jLrdicial proccdurc. l1'<lnc thing is more ncccssary in law than any othcr thing, it is thc quality of ocrtainty. That quality r.vor"rld totally clisitppcar if' judgcs of coordinatc jurisdiction in a Iligh CoLrrt start ovcrruling onc anothcL's clccisiou."

¶23'I'hcrcfbrc, wc r,rpirold thc contcuticlu oL thc lcarttr:d Aclclitional Solicitor (lcncral that wc ousht not to ct,cn outortain this writ pctition, but lcavc it to thc Pctitioncls to apptoach thc Suptctnc (lourt lbr challcnging thc oorrcctncss oI thc conclusions arrivccl tt by thc carlicr I )ivision .llcnch. WP (Q No.8B3/2009 l'age 20 o.l'37 t:.."1

¶24It rvas suburittccl bv lcarncd oouuscl for tho l)ctitionors that cvcn if thc principlcs analogotts to thc principlcs of res.iudicuttt ctt' constrnctivc res jutlicul.u dpply to this cilsc, a challongc to thc notification clatccl 7tl' .f anuary, 2009 is a complctcly inclcpcuclcnt causc oI action ancl thc Pctitioncrs alc cntitlcd to inclopcnclcntly challcngc thc validity of that notification. Wc do not think this is tltc corrcct way.of looking at thc issuc. As wc havc mcntioncd ab<lvc, thc notification clatcd 7"' January,2009 was a clircot result ol'th.e judgnront of tlris (lourt in thc -['[J,. Tho irnpugncd notification was, in lirct, issucd in cxccution oI thc dircctions issuccl by this Oourt. That bcirrg tho position, tlto urcro issuarncc of the in'rpugned notification cloos not givo an incleperrclcnt causc of aotion to thc Pctitioncls. I'hcrc is nothing to suggcst that thc dirccti<lns issncd in thc PIL wcrc without jurisdicti<lrl or wcrc oxccssivc or arbittary or coulcl lrc challcngccl on any othcr gror.rnd whatsoovor. lrr that vic'w of thc mattcr, it, in thc faithful implcmcntation of thc clocision oI this (l<lurt, tho I)clhi (iovcrnmcnt dccidocl to issuc thc inrpugnccl notification, it cannot bc faultcd with, unloss <lJ'coursc thc clccision ol' this (lourt in thc PIL is wrong, but as wc havc nrcntionotl abovc, this is not tho appropriatc lbrum lbr raising that issuo. WP (C) No.883/2009 l'ugc 2l ol'37 I J.. Natural justice and thc llnvironmcnt (Protcction) l{ules:

¶25Ncvcrtliclcss, having cntortainod this u'rit pctition, whiclt rcally iuvolvos issucs ol' gcucral public itnp<lrtatrco, \\'(-) l'ccl it applopliatc to clcal with thc contcntions raisccl by lcarncd counscl lirr thc Pctitioncrs. 'I-hc first principal subnrission of-lcarnod c<luuscl was that thc proccdurc givcn in Itulc 4 oI tho JIPI{ rvas not fblltlrvcd. l'hc rnlcs tlrat wc arc couccrncd with aro Itrrlo 4(1), 4(2),4(3)(a) and 4(4). 'l'hcsc rcad as uuclcr: "4. I)ircctions. - (1) AnV dircction issuccl ttuclcr scctiou 5 shall bc in writing.

(2) l'hc diroction shall spccily thc uatrtrc of action to bc tzrkcn and thc tirnc within which it shall bc cornplicd with by thc pcrsort, o'ffic;cr clr thc atrthority to rvltotn srtclt dircction is givcn. (3-a) 'fhc pcrsou, officcr or alttlitlrity to whorn atry dircction is sor.rght to bc issnccl shall bc sorvcd rvith a colly of thc proposcd ditcction and shall lrc givcu an oppot'tunity ol'not lcss than fiftccn days lionr tlro datc o['scrvicc o['a noticc to l-rlc r.vith an of'fioor dcsignalr:d in this bchall'thc objcctions, if any, to thc issLrc of thc pr<lp<lscd dircction. %t ,/ XXX XXX

(4) Thc Ccntral (iovcrnrnout sliall rvithin a pcriotl ol' 45 days fiorn thc datc of toccipt of thc ob.icotions, if-any, or '{ fi'orn thc clatc up to which an opporturiity is givcn to thc pcrson, oLficor ot authority ttl iilc objcctions whichcvcr is carlicr, aftcr considcring thc objcctions, if'atry, rccoivcd fi'om thc pct'sol1, offtccr or atrthority sought to bo clircctcd WP (Q No.883/2009 l'agc 22 q/'37 (3-b) xxx

¶26ancl lor rcasolls to bc rccorclcd irr writing, ctlulimr, ruoclify or docidc not to issuc thc proposcd clircctitln." fhc sr.rbrnission maclc bv lcarnccl cortnsol is to thc olI'cct that {' 4Q, Lhc Pctitioncrs wcrc ncithcr givcn a uoticc oI thc isst-taucc ot' thc notificatiolt nor wcrc thcy givcn a hcaring l>oforc thc notificatiott was actually issucd. At fir'st blush, this submissicln cloos ttppoal' to be atLractivc.

¶27'l'hclc is no doubt that tlrc principles of naturaljtrstic;c, r.vhich arc sought to bc lcliccl Lrporl by lcarnccl counsol lbr thc Pctitioncrs would gcncrally bc applicablc to a cilsc snch as thc prcsont bLrt at thc saurc tituc it cannot bc iurgottcn that thcso princilllos cannot bo put in a strait jaokct. It is nor.v vcry wcll scttlccl that thc principlcs clf tratrtral justicc aro llcxiblo and thcir scopc, cxtcnt and applicability u,ould dcpcntl frttur casc to casc.

¶28In l{urnutuku SRTC v. .S.G. Kottru'uppu, (2005) 3 SCC 409, il was obscrvcd: "'Ihc qucstion as to what cxtcttt, principlos of uatural jtrsticc arc rccluircd kr bo complicd with would dcpcnd upon thc lact situation obtaining in caolt casc. 'l'hc ptinciltlcs of uattrral Wl> ((:) No.883/2009 I'uge 23 of37 ,--J justicc cernnot bc applicd in varcuum. 'Iltcy catnuot bc pLrt iri any straitjackct litnnula."

¶29Sirnilarly, rn P.D. Agrmvul v. Stute lJunk rf'Indiu, (200(, I SCC 776, it was said: "'l ltc principlcs of natttral justicc canuot bc put in a straitjackct ltxrnula. [t rnust bo socn in citctulstantial floxibility. lt has scparartc lacots. It has in rcccut tintc alscr uudcrgonc a sca ohetttgc."

¶30Givcn thc rccluircments of l{ulc 4 oI rhc ljPI{, what is it that thc l'ctitioncrs oould cxpcot? I'hcir first cxpcctaLion woulcl bc a trotico that a notification on thc lincs of what was actually issuccl otl 7'l' .lanuary, 2009 is contcrnplatcd. Thcir scooucl cxpoctation w<lltlcl bc i.tn opportrmity of filing objcr:tions to thc propclsctl notihcation ancl iI dccmccl apploprizrtc thcy would bc hoard bclorc a final dcoision is takon on thc cprcstion whcthcr a notification shoulcl bc issuod and if stl what its contcnts should bc.

¶31What has actually happcncd in this casc'? Jlctilrc wc ltllswor this, it is important to rcmcmbcr (1) that thc PlL couccrncd itsolf-with thc rnanagcrncnt of solicl wastc, particularly plastic lvasto, and (2) tltc pl'aycr in thc PIL was for a lran on tho tnanttJhcturo and salc ot'all illiistic WP (C) No.883/2009 I'uge 24 o/'37 ,9 ..{_ /{ bags. lt is in this contoxt that thc contcntion of lcanicd counscl filr tho f/U-Pctitioncrs ought to bc lookccl at. u )2. Wcll bcfbrc thc impugncd notiLrcatiolt wets cvoll contcnrplal"ccl, thc Pctitioncrs r.vcrc prtt on uotico thal" thctc is a [)11., Lhc outconrc oI rvhich coulcl bc that thc usc o1' plastic bags may bc prohibitcd. ln rcsponsc to this PlL, which was roally in thc nztturc ol'a notice o{-a blanket ban, thc Pctitioncrs intcrvcnccl through Mr. l{atra ancl wcrc givcn a full hoaling in rcspcct of tho qucstiotr rvhcthcr tlto manufactnrc, Llsc aud salc of plastic bags should bc prohibitctl. J.n acldition thoreto, thc Petitioncrs wcrr: also givctt att opp(lrttrnity of' plaoing thcir point of vicw bcfor-c thc Justicc Chopra (lorurrittcc ancl thc I{cport o.f that Cotnurittcc itrdicatcs thal" Mr. l{attt was gii'cu iln aclocluatc opportunity of placing his point of vior, (which ho availccl) bcforc thc Cornrnittcc. l'hcn, bcforc final orcicrs wct'c passcd by this Court, tho I'ctitioncrs wofc again hcard at lcngth by a I)ivision lJcuch which issuccl sonlc dircctions, onc of thcrn bcing dircction (iv) advcrtcd to abovc. Signihcantly, this Conrt clid not lirlly acccllt tlic prayor uraclc in thc PII,, but only partly grantod Lho rolicf praycd [ilr'. ]lhis Coutl" did not irnposc a blankct ban on thc mannfacturc olplastics and its usc and WI' ((:) No.883/2009 l)ryc 25 o.l'37 salc within :Dclhi. Jlhc dircction rvas linritcd to orily lorbiclcling tho ttsc oI plastic bags in ccrtain arcas clf Dclhi. In othcr \\,ot'ds, tho vicw oI thc Potitioncrs was (to an cxtcnt) acccptcd by this Oorrrt. It is only thcrcaftcr that thc Dclhi (iovcrntncut issuccl thc notifioatiott clatcd 7"' Januaty, 2009. Clcarly, thcrcforc, thc l'ctitiollors wcrc givclt a lirll lcngth hcaring on thc isstto on morc tltetn onc Occilsiou - bcltlrc a constitutional court and also bcltlrc a C<lnuuittco - bclbrc atiy docision 'rvas takcn on thc issuance of a notiljcation suc;lt as tlrc onc acttrally issncd ou '7'l' January, 2009.Iloth thc cxpcctations of thc Potitioncrs wcrc Jirlllllcd - noticc of a possiblc blankct ban and arr <lpporttrtrity <ll' hcaring bc'filrs any such ban is imposcci. 'l'cl us, tlris is substart[ial and aclccluatc, though not a litcral, cornpliancc with ltr.rlc 4 of thc Ji['[I. aa -)-). ln this contcxt, it woLrld bo wisc to rclbr tc> A.iit Kumur Nug v. G.M. (PJ), htliun Oil CorTtrt. Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764, wltcrcin thc Suprcmc Oourt obsorvccl (in paragra;fi 44 of'l"hc l{cport): "llnt wc arc also awarc that tlrc ptiltciplcs of natttral jr.rsticc arc not rigicl 'or iurmutablc and hcucc thcy cannot bc imprisoncd in a straitjackct. Thcy rnust yicld to and cltango with cxigcnoics ol'situations.'l'hcy rnust lrc cottfitrccl within thcir limits aud canuot bc allowcd to rttn wild. lt has bcctl statcd: " 'l'o do a grcat tight' a{lct' all, it i.s pcrrnissiblc sclnrctinrcs 'to clo a littlc wft)l'lg'." ll'cr Mul<lrarji, O.J. in Ohurun Lul Suhu v. Union o.f'[ndia (l]hopul (ius ])istt.slt:r), WI' (q No.B83/2009 I'u54e 26 of'37 :1, f(l990) I SC(l 613.1. Whilc intcrprcting lcgal provisions, a court of larv cannot bc umrindful oI thc hard rcalitics oI lilb. ln our opiniotr, thc approach ol'thc (-'ourt in dcaling with such cases should bc pragnratic rathcr tltan pcdzrntic, rcalistic rathcr than doctrinairo, lunctional rathcr than lbrmal and practical rathcr than "prcccdcntial". (cmphasi s sr.rpplicd). It is truc that thc actual physical pror:cclrtrc laid cltlwrr in I{Lrlc v 1A -'t+. 4 ol'thc lil,It was not l'ollorvcd by thc ltespondcnts, but tlroro ciur bc tro cloubt that thc spilit or thc sum ancl substancc of ltLrlo 4 rvas lollowocl, inasmuch as thc Pctitioncrs had noticc oi what was likcly to happcrt or what tvas proposcd. 'l'hc Petitioncrs woro givcn at ltearing in rcspoct of-that proposcd action and thc hcaring rcsultcd in a clccision bcing takcn by this Court, which partly acccptod thcir sr-rbtnissions. lt is only thon, and as a f ollorv up, that a linal dccision was takcu u4rich took thc shapo of tlrc notification clatccl 7tl' January,2009. lu othcr worcls, thc crrtirc ningc of activity postnlatcd by ltulc 4 oI thc lil'It was {ollou'ccl if n<lt in lcttcr thon ccrtainly in spirit bclorc thc impugncd notiiication wrls issuccl. As thc Suprcmc Court has tolcl us, a prltguratio vicrv ol' thc mattcr has to bc takcn.

¶35IIas any prcjuclicc bccn oausccl to tho Potitioncrs lor nott- ,14'} (Q No.883/2009 I'uge 27 o/'37 /a-colnplial'rcc of thc physical proccdurc laid clorvn in l{ulc 4 of thc lil)l{'i In this contcxt, it was subrrrittccl try lcarnccl counscl lol thc l)ctitioncts that if an zrct has to bc donc in a particular mantrot', thcn it tnust bc douc in that lt"lanncr or trot at all. Iiol this, r'clianco rvas placccl upotr Nazir Ahmecl y. !{ing l}ntperor, AIR 1936 Privy Council 253 (2). Whilc this gcnoral proposition still holds thc llcld, it is not au absolutc proposition r.vhcn clvcr-thc ycars it has bccn rcoognizccl atrd acccptcd in inclcponclout Inclia that llcxibility in proocdurc or a play in tho joints is pcrmissiblc in givcn circurnstanccs, particularly whcrc thc principlcs ol'uatr"rral justicc arc itrvolvcd. As urcntionccl abovc, ot1 thc lircts of this casc, thc Pctitioncrs wcrc givcn an adcqrt4tc opporturity of placing thcir point oL vicw not only bcforc thc administrativc authotitics but ovclt bclirrc a judic;ial arrthority. This is nruch morc than thc Pctitionors coulcl havc askcd firr. 'l'o this cxtcnt, thc Pctitionors cal't ccr'Lainly ltavc l'lo gricvancc. 'l'hcrcforc, iI'tlic Pclitioncrs arc givctr tl<lrc thatr what thcy aro ontitlcd to ancl if in bcing givcn that grcator opportunity, thc spirit ol' thc law is followccl, thcrc can hardly bc any rcason lbr cornplitint ou thc part of thc Pctitioncrs. l,ookccl at lirltn anothcr point clf'vicw, all that thc I)ctitionols WP (q No.BB3/2009 Pugc 2<\ ol 37 \ \ I

¶36can hopc [br, in thcsc cirsun]stanccs, is an opportunity oL placing thcir point ol vicw bcforc thc I{cspondcnts in rcspcct o-[ a blanl<ct ban on tltc r.rsc of plastics. As hcld abovc, this opportunity rvas nradc availablc to thc I'ctitioncrs (and thcy acocptccl it). l)uring Lhc pcndcncy oI this casc, an opportunity was again oilcrcd to thc Pctitioncrs spcoifically in rcspcct of thc issuanoc of thc notification datcd 7'r'Jauuzuy,2009. l-hc loarncd Additional Solicitor Gcnclal rnaclc an ollor to thc J.'otitioncrs lbr a post clccisional hcalittg, as cotrtctnplatccl by Maneha Gandhi v. (lnion of Incliu, (1978) I SCC 248 and Sxtudesli Cottort Mills v. Union o.l' hdia, (1981) I SCC 664btt this rcclr.rcst rvas tnnrccl clor.vn by lcarnccl counsc)l for thc Pctitioncrs. llad thc Pctitioncrs acocptccl tlrc ollcr givcn by thc lcarncd Adclitional Solicitor (icncral, thc ltcspondcnts woLrld havc hcard thc Pctitioncrs and takcn a vicr.v in thc mattor but norv that thc offorhas lrecnrcjcctccl, wc arc IcIt witlr no optiun [rut to clctcrminc iI thc vicw takcn by thc Itcspondcnts is in any lllannor prcjuclicial to thc Potitioncrs or whcthcr thc dccision making procoss can bc luultcd in any lnzulncl .

¶37So lar as thc rncrits of thc validitv of thc rrotillcation datcd 7"' January, 2009 arc conccrncd, wc r.vill advcrt to it a littlc latcr. llowovcr, I4/1'(q No.c983/2009 l'uge 29 r2l'37 q in so letr as thc dccision rnakingproocss is cour:ctncd, wc itrc clf'tho viorv that cvcn though thcrc lras not bccn a litcral or cloctrinairc conrpliartcc with thc provisions of Itulc 4 of tlic ll['j]{, thc l)ctitioncrs havc pcrltaps got a bcttol hcerring that thcy could havo cxpcctccl if ltulo 4 oI thc lit)l{ was strictly cornpliccl rvith. ln thcir gotting a lrcttcr opportr"rnity of' cxprcssing their views, no prcjudicc has bccn causod to tho Potitioncrs. IIas thc carlier Division Rcnch misconstrucd 1he factual position? 3tt. In this contcxt, lcarncd counscl filr tho Pctitioncrs p<lintcd out that dircction (iv) issuccl by tho carlicr Division Jlcnch proccoclccl ou a fac'iually, thor,rgh paltially, incorucct basis. In our opittiott, as mcntioncd abovc, thc Pctitioncrs eu'c cntitlcd to challcngc this clirc<.:tiorr indcpcndcntly if they bclicvo that thc dilcctioll was givcn on thc basis oI a wrong lactual prcrnisc. 'l'liat apart, whcthcr thc dircction wus bascd cltt an crrollcous factual prcmisc or not is rcally of no consoclucncc at all. Ilic intcntion o['thc carlicr])ivision llcnch rvas clcarly to iblbid tltc uso of plastio bags oomplotcly in cight lrroaclly catcgoriz,ccl arcas. 'l'his is clcarly cxprcsscd in dircotion (iv). lt hardly mattcrs il' thc Division llcnch r.vlongly bclicvod that, cvcn carlicr, thc nsc of'plastic bags was iorbicldcn in sornc of thcsc catcgorizcd elroas. I"hclc is nothing to WP (q No.883/2009 I'u54c 30 o/' j7 \l) -t ,'J suggcst (cxccpt infcrcntially) that tho dirootion issuccl by thc carlicr I)ivision Ilcnoh rvoulcl havc bccrr clillcrcnt hacl it bccn advisccl that thc r-rsc of only non-dcgradablc bags is ibrbiddon in sornc c;atcgorizcd arcas. As {irr as wc arc collccrnr:d. thc carlior J)ivision llonch rvould havc bccu awarc that thc Itoport statccl (thougli in a ncgativc tlatrtcr) lhat cicgradablo plastics oor.rld posc a licalth or cnvilonnrontal hazarcl aucl that rcscarch work is on for thc dcvcloptncnt of appropriatc typcs oI bioclegtaclablc plastir:s (sccond qucstion poscd to tlrc Cornn"rittcc). Apparcntly kccping this in nrincl, intor alia, clircction (iv) r.vas issuccl lry tho carlicr J)ivision llcnch. t ,rv -t"

¶39Wc also fincl that dircction (iv) is conllositc ancl {.hc last ['crv words in this dircction, namcly, "whcro usc o('sLrch bags is alrcacly Iilrbicldcn" aro mcroly an appcndagc. '.|'hcsc foll' words aro clcarly scvcrablc l}orn thc sutrstancc of tlic clircction. At bcsl., it cor-rlcl bc saicl that thcsc r.vords form thc justification fill issuiug tho clircction, but this rnight not bc tho bcst or only way o{' construiug thc basis o1' thc clirootion. This is bccausc tho rcasons lor thc dirootion itrc contuiucd in tho tcxt of thc judgrnont. l'l/P (Q No.8B3/2009 l)uga 3l r2l'37 /-"'

¶40'I'hc truc tcst, it"t thcsc circumstanocs, rvor.rlcl bc this: (lan thc clircction bc sustainccl rvithout tho 'ofibncling' worcls on thc lrasis ol-thc contcnts ol'thc jr"rdgmcnt? In our opini<ln, tlic answor to this is irr thc ailirnrativc. It appcars to us that thc oarlicr-l)ivision JJcuclt r.vas conscious of thc fact that "A trlankcL ban on thc usc of plastic bags tnay bc promaturc having rcgalcl to thc to thc fact that plastic bags arc inclcccl part of thc commcrcierl milicu in thc city and cannot bc coruplctcly banned n,ithout providing olrcap ancl acceptablc altcrnativcs." lt is {br this rcason that ths carlior Division Ilcnch clid not lran thc uso oIplastic bags all ovcr thc city - it rcstrictcd thc ban only to a ['cu, spccificd arcils. 'l'hc logic of this is to bc lound in tlrc l'ollou,ing rvorcls {iorn the clccision of thc carlicr f)ivision I]cnoh: "If plastic bags arc ruracccptablc in hotols, h<lspitirls aud malls, thcrc is no rcason why thcy shoulcl bc pcnnittccl in rnain rnarkcts and local shopping ccntrcs. In that vicrv forbidding usc of plastic bags cvcn in rnain malkcts ancl local shopping ccntrcs rvoulcl, thcrcloro, holp in clcaling r.vith thc rrrcnaoc of plastic garbagc in l)olhi."

¶41At tfiis stago, wc ncccl to rcmind oursclvcs that tlic carlicr J)ivisiori Ilcnch was conccrnod with (l) tlic cliiliculty in thc managcnrcnt of solicl tvastc cansccl, intcr alia, by plastic bags not ncccssalily dcgradablo or non-dogradablc plastic bags, ancl (2) thc possibility of'a WP (q No.883/2009 l'rye 32 ol'37 ", -t\ i-, total ban on thc lrsc ol'plastio bags in Dclhi.'I'hc sohrtiorr arrivctl at l>y thc carlicr Division Ilcnch rvas tltat (l) thc managomcnt of solicl u,astc causcd, intcr alia, byplastic bags is possiblc if thc usc of'plastic bags is curbccl in somc spccihccl arcers, and (2) a ocimplotc ol a blankct bau otr thc usc of plastio bags is inaclvisablc. Wc scc tto clif'ficulty, pot' sc, iu acccpting both thcsc conolusions rvhich wclo atlivod at aLtcl hcaring all afl'cctcd partics. Whilc oonstnring thc judgmcnt oI tho oarlicr l)ivision Ilcnoh,

¶42-), wc n:nst also rcrucmbcr what thc Sr4rrcmo Court said in Kesur l)et,i v. Union,yl'Intlia, (2003) 7 SCC 42 thaL, "'I'hc juclgrncnt of a court is not to bc intcrprotcd likc a statutt: whcrc cvcly worcl, as lar as possiblc, hits to bc givcn a litcral mcanine and no word is to bo ignorcd."

¶43' Similarly,in Rritish Ruihuults lJourcl v.Ileruington 1972 tlC 877 Lord Moris said: "'I'herc is always pcril in trcating thc rvot'cls of a spccolt or judgmcnt as though thcy arc words in a lcgislattivo cuactttt{:ltt, and it is to bo rcmcmbcrccl that judicial uttcrauccs at'c tnaclc in thc sctting of thc fzrcts o['a parlicular celso." Wl) (() No.8<93/2009 l'ugc 33 o.l'37

¶44'I'hc irnpaot of all this is that thr: actiotr takon by thc l)clhi \,tt) '\: (iovcrnmcnl, namcly, thc issuancc of thc notilioation clatocl 7tl' Januaty, 2009 is a clircct conscquonr:c of thc dccision oI'this Oourt ancl i('thc Pctitioncrs havc auy gricvanoc in this rogarcl, as wo havc saicl itbovc, thcir rcrnocly lics clsowhcrc, cortainly uot in anothcl writ pctition. Validity of the irnpugncd notilication:

¶45Jn so far as thc mcrits oI thc irupugncd tr<ltificatiorr arc conocnrcd, wc lllay notc that it docs not prohibit thc tnauulhcturo ol plastic.tr"gt, which appcars to bc thc primary activity o1'thc Pctitioncrs. All that it sccks to achicvc is a prohibition on thc uso, salc aud stot'ago oi'plastic bags in ccrtain catcgorizcd locations rvithin l)olhi. Again, it is not as i{'thcrc is a blankct ban cltr thc usc, salc or stot'agc o{-all kincls of plastic bags all ovcr [)clbi. lt is truc that initially, only iron-clcgradatrlc plastic bags rvcrc prohil>itcd in 415 star hotols, hospitals having a bcd strcngth of-100 bcds or morc ancl rcstzrurants having a soatiug capacity of morc than 100 scats. llorvcvcr. whathas norv bcon clonc is to cxtcttcl this ban to includc clcgraclablc plastio bags as woll tncl to prohibit thcir usc (along with non-dcgradablc plastic bags) in rcstauriurts havittg a WI' ((:) No.883/2009 l)uga 34 r2/'37 )J. ,, scating capacity clf mclrc than 50 scats.'A lran on thc usc cll'dcgraclablc plastic bags has bccn cxtcndccl to lclur othcr catcgorizocl aroas, such as liuit ancl vcgotablo outlcts oI Mothcr l)airy, liquor vonds, sh<lpping malls and all shops in rnain markcts and shopping contrcs. ls thcrc anyl-hing tcrribly wrorlg with this? According to lcamcd counscl lilr thc Pctitioncrs, his clionts' q \'

46.

¶41tlrsinsss lias cornc to a stanclstill bcoause ul-tlre irnpugncd rrotification. Wc arc unablc to unclcrstarrd how this is possitrlc. I'hc nrauulactulo oJ' plastic bags has not bccn prohibitcd by thc l{cspondcnts. I'ho usc erncl salo o{' lllastic bags has also not bccn prohibitccl cxccpt in ccrtairr l" clcsifnatccl arcas, ancl not clscwhcrc. At bcst, thc rlamrlacturing activity of thc L'ctitioncrs would havc bccn rcducccl or thcir cprantr.rrn o['salcs r.vould havc rlccrcasccl - but that is not sullicicnt to invaliilatc tho irnpr,rgnccl notification. 'I'hcrc is only a partial prohibition imposccl ancl not a courplctc prohibitiou, and ccrtainly not oni o{'such a uragnitudc as to lall Ibul of Articlc l9((r) of thc Constitution. ln Om Prukush v. Stote oJ'Uttur Pruilesh, (2004) 3 SCC 402 thc Suprcrnc Court took thc vicw that tho prohibition on tho salc ol'cggs W|' (q No.B83/2009 ['uge 35 o/'37 within thc municipal limits of Itishikcsh was a roasonzrtrlc rostriction within thc mcaning of Afl.iolc 19(6) of tho Constitution. It rvas hclcl that thc naturc of'thc tradc ancl thc public intcrost sougl'rt to bc scn,cd urc in'rportant factors to bc takcn into consicloratiou. Although it u,as acccptccl that tradc in cggs cannot bc consiclclccl objcctionabic or' injurious to socicty, yct thc prohibition was lrold to bc in public intcrcst. Itcliancc was placcd on thc lbllor.ving passagc fr<xn Slale oJ'Mutlrus v. V.G. Iloru, 1952 SCR 597: "It is inrportant in this contcxt to lrcar in nrind that thc tcsl" o1' rcasonablcncss, whcrcvcr prcscribcd, shoulcl bc applicd to cach indiviclual statutc irnpugncd, ancl no abstract standarcl or gcncral pattcrn, of rcasonatrlcncss can lrc laid dowrr as applicablc to all casos. 'l'hc naturc <lf tlic right allcgcd to havc bcon inliingcd, thc trndcrlying purposc clf thc rostrictiorrs irnpclsccl, thc cxtcnt ancl urgcncy of thc ovil soLrght to bc rcrnccliccl thcroby, tlio disproportion oI thc irnposition, thc prcvailing conditions at thc timc, should all cntcr irrto thc judioial vcrclict."

¶48Applying thc tcsts laid down by tho Constittrtion llcnch, it is clcar that tho lirnitation on thc salc, uso and storagc ol plastio bags in ccrtaiu arcas iu Dcllii has bccn laicl down kccping in vicw thc problcm ol' solicl r.vastc rnanagcrncnt, particrtlarly of plastic bags, rvhich chol<c drains ancl cntcr thc iood chain thcrcby potcntially causing hoalth risks. l'l/P (C) No.8,\3/2009 l'uge 36 o.l'37 ,,{1 \' r --{- 'l'hcrc can bc no doubt that the lirnitations imposod arc itr public iutcrcst ancl havc, apparcntly, bccn cnlorcccl in scvcral othcr parts of lnclia also. Mcrcly bccalrso somo corruncrcial intcrosts oI thc Pctiti<lncrs arc clilutcd docs not lucau that tlierc is no public intr:rcst in issuing tho irujrugnccl notihcation.

¶49Wc lrncl 11o good rcason to strikc cl<lwn thc impugnccl notii'rcation. Thc r.vrit pctition is clismisscd. No costs. MADAN I}. I,OKUII,.I .Iuly 14, 2009 llcg (lcrtifiod that thc cot't'cctccl copy of thc judgmorrt has bccn transmittccl in thc urain Scrvcr. A.K. PATIIAK,.I WP (q No.8<93/2009 Page 37 ol' j7

HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No. 882 of 2009 & CM 368412009 Judgment reserved on: May 2I.2009 Judgment delivered on: July 14.2009 1. IWs Rainbow Polymers Through Shri Jagjit Singh S/o Shri Gurbax Singh aged about 36 years, having its office at F-79, Purvi Marg, New Delhi-110020. 2.' IWs Veeran Plastic Industries Through Shri R.K. Puri S/o Shri S.R. Puri aged about 63 years having its office at t3 2, P r abhavi Ap artment Plot No.29B, Sector-10 Dwarka, New Delhi- 1 I 0075. 3. IWs Narendra Plastic Ltd. Through Shri Shelley Arora S/o Shri S.D. Arora aged about 46 years having its office at 42, Navjeevan Vihar - New Delhi-l10017. 4. IWs New Sales Corporation Through Shri Vivek Chopra S/o Late Shri B.R. Chopra aged about 50 years having its office at INl06, Rang Rasayan Apt. Sector-l3, Rohini New Delhi-110085. WP (C) No.8B2/2009 Page I of 5 ( 'f ,rt r Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 5. IWs A.P. Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Through Shri Ajay Kumar S/o Late Shd K. Chand aged about 47 years having its office at B-1/50, Ashok Vihar-II Delhi-l10052. 6. lzl/s H.K. Plastic Industries Through Shri H.N. Singh S/o Late Shri Shiv Dayal aged about 72 years having its office at J-90, Kirti Nagar Nevy Delhi-110015. 7. IWs Nayut Enterprises Through Shri Piyush Sachdeva S/o Shri Rakesh Sachdeva having its office at GB-13, Shivaji Enclave Nqw Delhi. 8. Juneja Sales Through Shri Manoj Juneja S/o Shri O.P. Juneja Aged about years having its office at D1-B/188, Janakpuri, New Delhi. 9. Allied Polybags Pvt. Ltd. Through Shri Mohinder Kohli S/o Late Shri R.L. Kohli Aged about years having its office at R-540, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. 10. Polypack Enterprises Through Shri Ajay Jain S/o Late Shri P.C. Jain Aged about years having its office at C-161, Preeti Vihar, New Delhi-l10092. WP (C) No.882/2009 s \ l-- ( \ 11. K.K. Industries Through Shri Anil Dutta S/o Shri Dutta Aged about years having its office at C-26, New Krishna Park Vikaspuri, New Delhi. 12. Avon Plastic Through Shri Katawaro S/o Shri Athalal Aged about years having its office at 53, Surya Cly, Gali No. 10 ana. o-, 1- Faridabad' Haryr IJ. Sachdeva Enterprises Through Shri Neraj Sahdeva Aged about years having its office at E-380, G.K..II New Delhi-l1048. 14. Alpine Plastic Through Shri Satish Kaura S/o Shri B.D. Kaura Aged about years having its office at G-40, F.F. East of Kailash New Delhi. 15. Mangalam Packaging Through Shri Kamal Sharma S/o Shri G.L. Sharma "r. ..- , Aged about years having its offrce at 71169, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. 16. Bhagwati Polymers Through Shri A. Malhotra S/o Late Shi S.K. Malhotra Aged about years having its office at C-93, Okhla Ind. Area-I New Delhi- 1 10020. WP (C) No.882/2009 $ v 17. Allied Plast Through Shri S.K. Gaba S/o Shri V.B. Gaba Aged about years having its office at C-25, Sriniwaspuri New Delhi-110065. ...Petitioners Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidharth Singhal and Mr. Nikhil Bhalla. Advocates Versus f Government of NCT of Delhi Departm.ent of Forests & Wildlife 2no Floor, 'A' Block, Vikas Bhawan New Delhi. -l- >^ tv ...Respondent Through Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, ASG with Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Ms. Akanksha Sharma and Mr. Amey Nargolkar, Advocates Mr. Arvind Sah, Advocate for the Intervenor in CM 368412009 Yes Not necessary Not necessary Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKT]R HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? WP (C) No.882/2009 v MADAN B. LOKUR. J. For orders, please see Writ Petition (Civil) No.883 of 2009 (A11 India Plastic Industries Association & Others v. Government of NCT of Delhi). {t^J