The Kerala High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by various plastic manufacturers and traders challenging the State government's 2019 orders banning single-use plastics across the State. The petitions, including Glister Sachet India Private Limited v. State of Kerala & Ors and connected cases, were rejected on the grounds that the State's actions were lawful, environmentally justified, and backed by statutory authority.
Justice Viju Abraham, who delivered the judgment, upheld the State’s power under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to impose such restrictions. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Paper Cup Manufacturers Association v. State of Tamil Nadu [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1383], which affirmed the validity of State-level bans on single-use plastics under the same provision.
Quoting the Supreme Court judgment, Justice Abraham observed:
“In the light of the declaration of law by the Apex Court upholding the power of the State Government to issue ban orders regarding various stages of single use plastics, I am of the view that the challenge against the Government Orders are only to be rejected... I am inclined to repel the challenge made in these writ petitions against the Government Orders.”
The impugned Government Orders dated November 27, 2019, and December 17, 2019, imposed a comprehensive ban on the manufacture, storage, sale, and use of specified single-use plastic items within Kerala. While most petitions challenged the validity of these orders, one petition supported their implementation.
The State government, through its pleader, defended the ban by asserting its authority under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act to take preventive environmental measures. The Standing Counsel for the Central Pollution Control Board also highlighted that the Central Government subsequently issued detailed rules regulating single-use plastics via notifications dated August 12, 2021, and July 6, 2022, further strengthening the legal framework behind the ban.
The Court concluded that there was no legal infirmity in the State’s orders and found no merit in the challenges raised. Accordingly, all writ petitions were dismissed.
Additionally, the Court rejected claims for monetary relief sought by some petitioners. One petitioner had requested a refund of ₹10,000, imposed as a fine by a local authority, while another sought a refund of ₹13.5 lakh due to unsold stock following the ban. The Court held that such claims involved disputed facts and were not maintainable under writ jurisdiction, directing the parties to seek remedy before the appropriate forum.
Picture Source :
