Kerala High Court
Dr.Vasundhara Menon vs The Union Of India on 16 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/27TH MAGHA,1942
W.P(C).No.4291 OF 2020(J)
PETITIONER:
1 DR.VASUNDHARA MENON
AGED 49 YEARS
PROPRIETOR, GREEN EARTH SOLUTIONS,
LAYAM ROAD, THRIPPUNITHURA P O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682301.
2 P.M. NEERAJ RAM
MANAGING PARTNER, NATUR GREEN SOLUTION,
THADEKKADU, PONJASSERY P O, PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683547.
3 K.M. SHAMNAS
PROPRIETOR, ECO GREEN BAGS,
ERUVATTY, PINARAYI P O, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-
670642.
BY ADV. SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, INDIRA
PARYAVARAN BHAWAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI,
PIN-110003.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
3 THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
4 THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
PARIVESH BHAWAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR,
NEW DELHI, PIN-110032.
5 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
PATTOM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.
R1 BY SRI.M.A.VINOD, CGC
BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
R2-3 BY SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVT. PLEADER
BY SRI.S.DILIP, GOVT. PLEADER
BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC
BY SRI.S.SUJIN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11-02-2021 ALONG WITH W.P(C).4493/2020(J) & CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 16-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/27TH MAGHA,1942
W.P(C).No.4493 OF 2020(J)
PETITIONERS:
1 ADARSH.P.S
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. SWAMINATHAN.P.K., PUTHAN VEEDU, KARNAKI
NAGAR,KODUVAYUR P.O., PALAKKAD DIST, KERALA-678 501
PROPRIETOR, GLOBIO PACKS PVT LTD,P-32,KINFRA IITP,
KANJIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD ,KERALA-678 621
2 M.B.SHINOY,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. M.S.BALACHANDRAN,MADAPPULLY HOUSE,
BEHIND KRISHI BHAVAN, AYYANTHOLE-THRISSUR -680 003,
PROPRIETOR, GEETHA INDUSTRIES, AMBAKKAD ROAD,
PUZHAKKAL, THRISSUR-680553
3 NEENA C.MOHAN,
AGED 39 YEARS
D/O. K.CHANDRAMOHAN,32,UMA NAGAR, PULIPPARAMBU, OLLUKKARA
P.O., THRISUR-680 655,PROPRIETOR, ESSEN TRADINGS, POPULAR
ROAD, PARAVATTANI, OLLUKKARA P.O., THRISSUR,PIN-680 655
4 SAJIN ANTONY
ELUVATHINGAL HOUSE, ST JOHN'S STREET, P.O CHIYYARAM,
THRISSUR-680026, PROPRIETOR, ECOPLANET, ST JOHNS STREET,
P.O.CHIYARAM, THRISSUR, PIN -680 026
5 MUMDAS SAHAB
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O. P.A SAHABUDHEEN PALLAVEETIL HOUSE, KANNAMKULANGARA,
KOORKENCHERY, THRISSUR-680 007, PROPRIETOR, SB TRADERS
GROUP, KANNAMKULANGARA, KOORKENCHERY, THRISSUR-680 007
6 C.K.SUNNY
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.C.V KURIAN, CHERUVATHORE HOUSE, PAUL ABRAO ROAD, KOCHI-
682 018, ERNAKULAM, PROPRIETOR, MILTONE ENTERPRISE, MUSLIM
STREET, OPP ARISTO LODGE,
KOCHI-682 035
BY ADV. SRI.C.R.REKHESH SHARMA
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT,
FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JORBAGH ROAD,
NEW DELHI,PIN-110 003
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3 THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
4 THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PARIVESH BHAVAN, EAST
ARJUN NAGAR, NEW DELHI,PIN-110 032
5 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PATTOM P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 004
R1 BY ADV.SMT.PREMLATHA K.NAIR
R2-3 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
BY SRI.M.AJAY, SC
BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC
BY SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVT. PLEADER
BY SRI.S.DILIP, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-
02-2021 ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.4291/2020(J) & CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/27TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.4993 OF 2020(Y)
PETITIONER:
P.S.MURUGAN
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O LATE P.S.MONY,PROPRIETOR,'GREEN BAGS',
ALANKAR BUILDING,BLDG.No.24/1115,
MC ROAD,CHENGANNUR-689121.
BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT
DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM,
PIN-695001.
2 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
H.O.PATTOM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695004.
3 CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY,
CHENGANNOOR.P.O, ALAPUZHA,
PIN-689121,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4 THE SECRETARY
CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY,
CHENGANNOOR.P.O,ALAPUZHA-689121.
R1 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVT. PLEADER
SRI.S.DILIP, GOVT. PLEADER
R3-4 BY SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN,SC,CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY
SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11-02-2021 ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO.4291/2020(J) & CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/27TH MAGHA,1942
W.P(C).No.5107 OF 2020(K)
PETITIONER:
M/S.ANNA POLYMERS
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
690 509, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT.LIZA ANNE
VARGHESE, AGED 40 YEARS, WIFE OF NEBU THOMAS, RESIDING AT
KILLILATH HOUSE, BANK ROAD, KAYAMKULAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SMT.K.S.SMITHA
SMT.T.T.SHANIBA
SRI.M.V.VIPINDAS
SHRI.AMAL DEV D
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE, SOUTH SANDWICH BLOCK, ROOM-
SSBT II, 4TH FLOOR, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE,
DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE (DOECC)
4TH FLOOR, K.S.R.T.C BUS TERMINAL, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
3 THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 004
4 THE MEMBER SECRETARY,
KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 004
5 THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PARIVESH BHAVAN, CBD CUM OFFICE COMPLEX,
EAST ARJUN NAGAR, SHAHDARA, NEW DELHI 110 032
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
6 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
FOREST AND CLMATE CHANGE, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN,
JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI PIN 110 003
R1-2 BY SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY SRI.S.DILIP, GOVT. PLEADER
BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
R5 BY SRI.M.AJAY, SC
BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC
R5-6 BY ADV. SMT.CHANDINI G NAIR, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-
02-2021 ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.4291/2020(J) & CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 16-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/27TH MAGHA,1942
W.P(C).No.5952 OF 2020(T)
PETITIONER:
MARY VIJAYAM K.T.
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.P.S.RAJAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.MYTHRI TRADE LINKS,
DOOR NO.31/557/A3, A.K.G.ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682024.
BY ADVS.SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH
SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR
SMT.VANDANA MENON
SRI.VIMAL VIJAY
SHRI.RESHMA T.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT,
FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN,
JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN-110003.
2 THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PARIVESH BHAWAN, EAST
ARJUN NAGAR, NEW DELHI, PIN-110032.
3 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695001.
5 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.
6 SHUCHITWA MISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SWARAJ BHAVAN,
NANDANKODE, KAVADIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.
R1 BY ADV. MR.C.DINESH, CGC
R3-4 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
R3-4 BY SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY SRI.S.DILIP, GOVT. PLEADER
BY SRI.M.AJAY, SC
BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11-02-2021 ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO.4291/2020(J) AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 16-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 9 ::
'C.R.'
JUDGMENT
'The utility of plastic in contemporary society is at a crossroads where the perceived
benefit of single use, throw away products and packaging is outweighed by the true
cost of persistent waste and fragmented micro plastics in terrestrial and marine
ecosystems'
- Marcus Eriksen1
The Facts in Brief:
Responding to calls from interest groups that sought a ban on the use of
single use plastic articles, the State Government issued Orders, by invoking
the power delegated to it by the Central Government under the Environment
Protection Act, banning the manufacture, stocking and sale of single-use
plastic/one-time use plastic in the State of Kerala with effect from
01.01.2020. While doing so, and with a view to encourage the use of
non-polluting substitutes, articles made from compostable plastic were
initially excluded from the purview of the ban order. Through subsequent
orders, however, the State Government brought certain types of carry bags
made from compostable plastic also within the purview of the ban. The
1The Plastisphere - The Making of a Plasticised World; Tulane Environmental Law Journal, Summer
2014, Vol.27, No.2, Plastic Pollution (Summer, 2014), pp.153-163
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 10 ::
trigger for the changed stand of the Government is stated to be the report
received by it from a technical task force that was constituted by it, which
suggested that there are growing number of instances where carry bags
made from non-compostable plastic are being passed off as compostable
ones. The petitioners in these writ petitions being engaged either in the
manufacture or distribution or both, of 'compostable carry bags' in the
State, impugn the Government Orders that include their products within the
purview of the ban on single-use/one-time use plastic.
2. The facts in each of these writ petitions are similar. The petitioners
have the necessary licenses and consents under the various regulatory
statutes for the manufacture and/or distribution of 'compostable plastic
carry bags' as defined under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as 'the PWM Rules' for brevity ) framed by the
Central Government under the Environment Protection Act, 1986
(hereinafter referred to as 'the EP Act' for brevity ). During the pendency of
the writ petitions before this Court, and pursuant to interim orders issued
therein, the products dealt with by the petitioners were tested by the
statutory authorities for conformity with the specifications for 'compostable
plastic carry bags' and the reports made available before this Court suggest
that they do. Thus, the only issue that arises for consideration in these writ
petitions is the legality of the impugned Government Orders that include the
products dealt with by the petitioners within the purview of the ban on
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 11 ::
single-use plastic.
The Arguments of Counsel:
The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners by their learned
counsel Sri. Jawahar Jose, Sri. Praveen Hariharan, Sri. Kodoth Pushparaj,
briefly stated, are as follows:
The State Government, while issuing the impugned Government Orders
has acted in terms of Section 5 of the EP Act, pursuant to the power
delegated to it by the Central Government under Section 23 of the said
Act. The said power under Section 5 of the Act, however, cannot be
exercised to prohibit the use of an item that is otherwise permitted for
use under the PWM Rules. The contention, in other words, is that the
delegated power to issue directions cannot be exercised to prohibit the
use of an item whose use is not prohibited by the Central Government
through the issuance of any such direction.
The petitioners having acted on the stated policy of the Central and State
Governments, that permitted the use of compostable plastic carry bags as
a legitimate substitute for plastic carry bags, and having incurred
substantial costs for manufacture/purchase of such carry bags, cannot be
deprived of their legitimate expectation to carry on their business of
distribution of such carry bags merely on account of a finding that there
were many instances noticed of fake carry bags being used in the market.
The policy decision of the State Government contained in the impugned
Government Orders infringes their fundamental rights under Articles 14
and 19 (1)(g) as also their right under Article 301 of the Constitution of
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 12 ::
India.
Even while bringing compostable carry bags under the purview of the
ban order, the State Government has chosen to keep compostable
garbage bags out of the purview of the ban order. Compostable carry
bags and garbage bags are identical in their chemical composition and
technical specifications and they differ from each other only in their form
and size. The selective choice of compostable carry bags alone for
inclusion under the ban order therefore lacks any rationale and
consequently, the policy decision ought to be seen as irrational.
The State Government has not produced any material that would suggest
that they were possessed of the necessary facts or data that pointed to a
proliferation of fake composite carry bags being used in the State.
Inasmuch as the ban order has the effect of imposing restrictions on a
legitimate business activity of the petitioners, and consequently on their
fundamental rights under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution, the
doctrine of proportionality would mandate that strong reasons exist for
resorting to the imposition of a ban on the products dealt with by the
petitioners. It is emphasized that the products dealt with by the
petitioners are not inherently unsafe or capable of causing pollution for
they have been recognised as permissible substitutes for plastic articles
even under the PWM Rules.
2. Responding to the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the contentions of the learned Government Pleaders
Sri.T.S.Shyam Prasanth and Sri.Dilip.S., briefly stated, are as follows:
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 13 ::
In as much as the impugned Government Orders give expression to a
policy decision of the State Government, the same ought not to be
interfered with by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
It is pointed out that the Government only acted on the suggestions of the
Task Force constituted by it to address various issues relating to the use
of plastic articles in the State. The Task Force had observed that there
was a flood of fake compostable alternative material to plastics and the
said issue had to be tackled. Inasmuch as the observation was specifically
with regard to carry bags, it was thought expedient to include only
compostable plastic carry bags within the scope of the ban order while
leaving other compostable plastic articles outside it.
In response to a specific query posed by the Court as regards whether
there was any material available with the task force, on the basis of
which they inferred that there was a flood of fake compostable
alternative materials to plastics being used in the State, it is conceded
that there was no such data and the views expressed by the task force
were based on their own perception of the alleged problem. It is also
conceded that the Government does not have any empirical data as
regards tests done on, and consequent detection of, fake compostable
carry bags that could have led it to conclude that there was an issue with
regard to such fake compostable carry bags.
The Issue:
On a consideration of the rival submissions, I find that the issue that
arises for consideration in these cases is whether this Court would be
justified in invoking its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of our
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 14 ::
Constitution, to interfere with the policy decision of the State Government,
that finds expression in the impugned Government Orders? A resolution of
the said issue, however, calls for an examination of the principles that inform
our higher courts while exercising the power of judicial review.
The Contours of Judicial Review:
The true basis of judicial review has been the subject matter of
discussion among legal scholars for many years. While under American
jurisprudence, even prior to the formal enunciation of a principle in Marbury
v. Madison, the court's power of judicial review was seen as emanating from
the larger concept of a fundamental law to which all state action, including
legislation, had to conform, in England, where there was no written
constitution, the basis for judicial review was often seen located in the
concept of Parliamentary sovereignty, and the allied concept of 'ultra vires',
that frowned upon any exercise of power by a statutory authority that went
beyond the mandate of the statute. In more recent times, however, there has
been a shift in judicial thinking in England, and it is now fairly well
established that judicial review is nothing more than a means adopted by
courts to uphold the rule of law in a modern day democratic republic. The
many instances where courts have thought it fit to interfere with decisions of
non-statutory bodies that have an impact on the rights of citizens, and where
the doctrine of ultra vires has no role to play, clearly reveal that the said
doctrine is not the sole basis for the exercise, by courts, of the power of
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 15 ::
judicial review. Judicial review is no longer seen based solely on principles of
statutory interpretation, but on the application of some general principles of
good administration to the exercise of power, irrespective of the source of
that power.2
2. Tom Bingham3 observes that Ministers and public officers at all
levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for
the purpose for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the
limits of such powers and not unreasonably. Judicial review is the tool that
the courts use to ensure this standard. Review is an appropriate judicial
function since the law is the judges' stock-in-trade, the field in which they
are professionally expert. In the exercise of the power of judicial review,
judges do not substitute their view for that of the statutory authority for they
often do not have the expertise necessary for taking such a view. They are
expected to act only as auditors of legality and nothing more.
3. Under our Constitution, the power of judicial review is traceable to
Articles 32 and 226 that confer on the Supreme Court and the High Courts
the power to issue prerogative and like writs to protect the citizens from
state action that infringes upon their rights. The Constitution being the
supreme law of our land, and the rule of law being one of its basic features,
2Dawn Oliver, 'Is the Ultra Vires Rule the Basis of Judicial Review? - 1987 Public Law, 543
3Tom Bingham, 'The Rule of Law', Penguin Books, London, 2011
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 16 ::
the exercise of statutory power has to conform, inter alia, to the
requirements of fairness, non-arbitrariness and reasonableness, all of which
are integral aspects of the rule of law. Thus, when a litigant approaches a
writ court, alleging a breach of his rights - be it a constitutional right, a
statutory right or a common law right - by an authority empowered by the
State, the court examines the manner in which the decision was arrived at,
and in exceptional cases, the decision itself, to see whether it conforms to
the requirements mandated by the rule of law.
4. In the context of statutory and common law rights, exercise of the
power of judicial review takes the form of examining whether the impugned
decision suffers from the vices of illegality, irrationality or procedural
impropriety. An aspect of irrationality is highlighted by the test propounded
in the Wednesbury case4 of enquiring whether the decision maker took into
consideration matters that were relevant to the decision, eschewed matters
that were irrelevant therefor, or even if he complied with both of the above,
his decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person possessed of the
relevant facts would have arrived at such a decision.
5. In the context of constitutional rights, it has often been found
useful for courts to resort to a heightened review whereby the courts
examine not only the manner in which the decision was arrived at but also
4Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation - (1948) 1 KB 223
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 17 ::
the merits of the decision itself. In a sense, the court substitutes its view for
that of the decision maker but only where the court finds that such a course
is necessary to uphold the rule of law, or where the decision of the public
authority is grossly disproportionate when compared to the object sought to
be achieved through the decision concerned. As already noticed above,
under normal circumstances, the lack of expertise in judges is seen as a
reason for courts not substituting its views for those of the primary decision
maker. However, when constitutional rights are at stake, the overriding
public interest involved in the protection of such rights justifies the courts'
resort to a heightened scrutiny and balancing of views through the
application of the doctrine of proportionality.
6. A three-limb test was propounded by the Privy Council to be
applied when deciding whether an interference with a particular human
right is proportionate.5 The said test has since been followed by the House of
Lords, and later by the UK Supreme Court, when considering whether an
interference with a Convention right is proportionate 6. The three-limb test is
as follows:
(i) The objective sought to be achieved by the interference must be
sufficiently important to justify limiting the right;
5De Freitas v Permanent Secretary of Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing - (1999) 1 AC 69 PC
6Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department - (2007) UKHL 11; R (F & Thompson v Secretary of State for
the Home Department - (2010) UKSC 17
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 18 ::
(ii) The measures designed to achieve the objective must be rationally
connected to it; and
(iii) The means used to impair the right must be no more than is
necessary to accomplish the objective.
7. In Huang7, the House of Lords added a fourth limb to the
proportionality test, namely the need to balance the interests of society with
those of individuals and groups. This 'fair balance' limb of the
proportionality test is considered in addition to the three limbs set out
before and is not an alternative to them8. Accordingly, the least intrusive
means of achieving a particular objective may still be disproportionate if
they do not strike a fair balance between the rights of the individual and
those of society9.
8. In our country too, a similar approach has been adopted by the
Supreme Court10, which found that when a law limits a constitutional right,
such a limitation would be seen as constitutional only if it was proportional.
Further, the law imposing restrictions would be treated as proportional only
if it was meant to achieve a proper purpose, and if the measures taken to
achieve such a purpose were rationally connected to the purpose, and were
necessary. Accordingly, the exercise that has to be undertaken by the courts
7Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department - (2007) UKHL 11
8R (Quila) v Secretary of State for the Home Department - (2011) UKSC 45
9R(Samaroo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department - (2001) EWCA Civ. 1139
10Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors v State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors - 2016 (7) SCC 353
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 19 ::
in judicial review is to find out as to whether the limitation of constitutional
rights is for a purpose that is reasonable and necessary in a democratic
society and then strive to weigh the competing values and achieve a fair
balancing of different interests. Reasonableness of a restriction has also to
be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of the
interests of the general public and not from the point of view of the persons
upon whom the restrictions are imposed or upon abstract considerations 11.
Discussions and Findings:
The above discussion on the scope and ambit of judicial review clearly
suggests that when a policy decision of the Government is challenged by a
person on the ground that it violates his/her fundamental rights under our
Constitution, this Court has to first examine the decision of the Government
to see whether there is any flaw in the decision making process. In that
exercise, this court would examine whether the relevant statute confers a
power on the Government to issue such directions. It would then examine
whether there are any factors, such as the non-compliance with the rules of
natural justice and fairness that vitiate the exercise of that power by the
Government. Thereafter, this Court would examine whether in arriving at
the decision, the Government has taken into account relevant facts and
eschewed irrelevant facts, and if both, whether the decision can be seen as
one that a reasonable person apprised of the facts will arrive at. While the
11Mohd.Hanif Quareshi v State of Bihar - AIR 1958 SC 731; BInoy Viswam v Union of India -2017 (7) SCC 59;
Anuradha Bhasin & Anr v Union of India & Anr - 2020 (3) SCC 637
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 20 ::
enquiry for the purposes of judicial review would ordinarily end at this
stage, and this Court would refrain from making an enquiry as regards the
merits of the decision, a primary or merits review would be undertaken
when the infringement alleged is of a constitutional right. In that event, the
decision of the Government will be subjected to a further scrutiny, by
applying the tests of proportionality, to see whether the decision is indeed
justified on the facts of the case.
2. On the facts of the instant cases, going by the express provisions of
Section 5 read with Section 23 of the EP Act, I do not find merit in the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State
Government does not have the power to issue the impugned Government
Orders. The express provisions of the statute clearly and unambiguously
suggest otherwise. The petitioners, however, argue that the decisions of the
State Government that have the effect of prohibiting their trade in
compostable plastic carry bags, infringes their fundamental right under
Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution. They point out that compostable plastic
carry bags, which are accepted as legitimate and non-polluting substitutes
for single-use plastic carry bags, by the statutory rules framed by the
Central Government under the EP Act, have now been brought under the
purview of the ban order solely on the ground that, in the perception of the
Government, there is a flood of fake compostable carry bags entering the
markets in the State.
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 21 ::
3. It is my view that such perception of the Government, without
anything more, might have justified the imposition of restrictions on
'ordinary rights' of persons, whether statutory or under common law,
especially when the restrictions are seen imposed with a view to sub serve
the fundamental right to clean environment of the public at large- a right
relatable to the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of our
Constitution. It will not, however, suffice to justify restrictions on the
'fundamental rights' of a person. To impose restrictions on fundamental
rights, the State Government would need to have cogent material that would
support an inference of overwhelming use of fake composite plastic carry
bags in the State. It cannot act on mere conjectures and surmises,
unsubstantiated by empirical evidence.
As already noticed, the restrictions imposed by the orders impugned
in these writ petitions is on the fundamental right of the petitioners under
Article 19 (1)(g) of our Constitution, to trade and deal in compostable plastic
carry bags, itself a non-polluting article, and through the dealing in which
the objects of the EP Act and Rules are not frustrated. It follows, therefore,
and on an application of the tests of proportionality discussed above, that
the decision of the Government to include compostable plastic carry bags
within the purview of the ban order in respect of single-use plastic articles
cannot be legally sustained. A Government decision in that regard has
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 22 ::
necessarily to be based on reliable material in the form of empirical data
that would clearly suggest the detection of sufficiently large number of
cases of fake composite carry bags entering the markets in the State, as
would render it practically impossible for the State to prevent trade in such
carry bags using the machinery for legal enforcement at its command. Only
in such event will the Government be able to justify the curtailment of a
fundamental right to trade/deal in a legitimate and non-polluting alternative
to single-use plastic carry bags. Admittedly, the State Government does not
have any such material. Their files, which were called for during the
hearing, apparently do not contain such material; nor was any such material
produced before this Court at the time of hearing. Thus, by leaving it open to
the State Government to decide upon an appropriate policy measure, after
gathering data/material to support the same, these writ petitions are
allowed by quashing the impugned Government Orders to the extent they
include compostable plastic carry bags also within the purview of the ban on
single-use plastic/one-time use plastic in the State of Kerala, and holding
that the petitioners shall be entitled to all the consequential reliefs flowing
therefrom. No costs.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
prp/
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 23 ::
APPENDIX OF W.P(C).NO.4291/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 6.2.2017
ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE
THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY UNDER SECTION 447
OF THE KERALA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1994,
(TOGETHER WITH THE PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED
28.06.2019, ISSUED FOR THE LICENSE, FOR THE
FINANCIAL YEAR 2019-2020)
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
DATED 15.5.2018 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER UNDER THE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
ACT, 2017.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 25.09.2019
ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE
PINARAYI GRAMA PANCHAYATH UNDER THE KERALA
PANCHAYATH RAJ (ISSUANCE OF LICENSE TO THE
DANGEROUS AND OFFENSIVE TRADES AND FACTORIES)
RULE, 1996.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 4.12.2019 ISSUED BY
M/S. TRUEGREEN ROSOVA GREENS L.L.P TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13.08.2018
ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
TO M/S.GREENDIAMZ BIOTECH LIMITED(TRUEGREEN)
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY M/S. LUCRO
LIMITED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.10.2018
ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
TO M/S. LUCRO LIMITED.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.01.2020
ISSUED BY M/S. VISION INDUSTRIES TO THE 3RD
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 1.11.2019
ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
TO M/S. VISION INDUSTRIES.
W.P.(C).No.4291, 4493,
4993, 5107 & 5952/2020 :: 24 ::
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/1/2019 ISSUED
BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2019
ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2019
ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE DATED 6.1.2020
ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND
CLIMATE CHANGE.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.1.2020 ISSUED
BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL
COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT
VIDE GO(RT) NO.134/2018/ENVT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.4/2020/ENVT. DATED
16.02.2020.
/TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
APPENDIX OF W.P(C).NO.4493/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.6/2019/ENVT DATED
27.11.2019
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.7 OF 2019, DATED
17.12.2019
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE SAID STANDARD
OPERATING PROCEDURE ISSUED BY CPCB
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY F THE TEST REPORT OF THE
COMPOSTABLE CARRY BAGS MANUFACTURED BY THE FIRST
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PUBLIC POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CPCB TO
M/S. UNIK PLY PACK, WHOSE PRODUCTS ARE
DISTRIBUTED BY 2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED TEST REPORT AND
DEGRADABLE TEST PROCESS REPORT AND PROVISIONAL
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CPCB OF M/S. VISION
INDUSTRIES, WHOSE PRODUCTS ARE DISTRIBUTED BY THE
PETITIONERS 3 TO 6
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE SAID GO (MS) NO
2/2020/ENVT DATED 27.01.2020
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE SCREE SHOT
OF WWW.SANITATION.KERALA.GOV.IN DATED 13.02.2020
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON
07.02.2020
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE OF DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT DATED 6.1.2020.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GOP (MS)
04/2020 DATED 16.2.2020.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF CONFISCATION OF
COMPOSTABLE CARRY BAGS.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.4/2020/ENVT. DATED
16.02.2020
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
APPENDIX OF W.P(C).NO.4993/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 27-12-2019
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LIST OF
CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD (CPCB) APPROVED
COMPANIES.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WEBSITE DECLARING THE
INGREDIENTS OF GREEN BAG
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 02.06.2017
ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
(CPCB)
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.05.2017
ISSUED BY CIPET FOR THE CARRY BAGS
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LABELING WITH QR CODE PRINTED ON
THE BAGS
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO.6/2019/ENVT.DATED
27.11.2019
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)7/2019/ENVT.DATED
27.11.2019
EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO.2/2020 ENVT.DATED
19.12.2019
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED DATED 03.01.2020
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.01.2010
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2020
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OPF THE G.O.(MS)NO.2/2020/ENVT DATED
27.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P13(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12.02.2020 TO
SECRETARY.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)4/2010/ENVT DATED
16.02.2020.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.27.12.2019 FOR
TRADE LICENSE SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R4(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.PCB/ALP/TG-
378/18 DT.9.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEER, K.P.C.B, ALAPPUZHA TO 4TH RESPONDENT.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
APPENDIX OF W.P(C).NO.5107/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY THE CPCB DATED 23/01/2020 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CERTIFIED
MANUFACTURERS/SELLERS FOR MARKETING AND SELLING
OF COMPOSTABLE CARRY BAGS/PRODUCTS PUBLISHED BY
THE CPCB IN WHICH THE PETITIONER FIGURES AS
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT RULES
2016 (AS AMENDED IN THE YEAR 2018)
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPOSTABLE
PLASTIC UNDER IS 17088-2008 ISSUED BY THE BUREAU
OF INDIAN STANDARDS
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TEST REPORT DATED 27/11/2019
ISSUED BY CIPET TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION HAVING REF CIPET-IPT-
KOCHI/TESTING/2018-19 DATED 29/03/2019
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE
HAVING NO. PCB/ALP/ICO -3211/R3/19
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT) NO.
134/2018.ENVT DATED 12/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER HAVING NO. GO 6
6/2019/ENVT DATED 27/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION HAVING NO. GO NO.
7/2019/ENVT DATED 17/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE DATED 06/01/2020
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION HAVING GO NO.
2/2020/ENVT DATED 27/01/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. GO NO.
4/2020/ENVT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
(SOP) AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 4 (H) OF THE PWM
RULES ISSUED BY THE CPCB
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION DATED 18/06/2019
REGARDING REGISTRATION OF MANUFACTURES AND
SELLERS OF COMPOSTABLE PLASTIC BAGS SSUED BY THE
CPCB
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RULE 13 OF PWM
RULES.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPORT
OF NIIST PRODUCED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT ALONG
WITH A COVERING LETTER DATED 19/10/2020.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS).NO.4/2020/ENVT. DATED
16.02.2020.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
APPENDIX OF W.P(C).NO.5952/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
BY THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY DATED 28.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE FOR THE GO-DOWN SITUATE
IN KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ISSUED BY
KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 01.04.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED
UNDER THE GOODS & SERVICE TAX ACT, 2017 DATED
10.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF AUTHORITY FROM
M/S.BRIJWASI PLASTIC PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
DATED 20.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO M/S.BRIJWASI
PLASTIC PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY UNDER RULE 4(H)
SUPRA, DATED 26.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
27.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P8.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
17.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
19.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
DATED 06.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 27.01.2020,
WHEREBY "THE MANUFACTURE, STOCK AND SALE OF
COMPOSTABLE PLASTIC CARRY BAGS" WAS SPECIFICALLY
BANNED.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL
COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE CENTRAL POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD DATED 07.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL LIST OF CERTIFIED
MANUFACTURERS/SELLERS FOR MARKETING AND SELLING
OF COMPOSTABLE CARRY BAGS/PRODUCTS AS ON
05.02.2020.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
