Kerala High Court
Kerala State Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana ... vs State Of Kerala on 7 May, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 17TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WA NO. 607 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.14002 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS
1 KERALA STATE VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT RAJU APSARA,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, VYAPARA BHAVAN,
CHARAMMOODU, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690505
2 VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI
ETTUMANOOR UNIT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT N.P. THOMAS, VYAPARA
BHAVAN, TEMPLE ROAD, ETTUMANUR, PIN - 686631
3 P.J. CHACKOCHAN,
AGED 59 YEARS
PAZHAYAMPALLIL HOUSE, VALLIKADU, ETTUMANOOR P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631
4 EBY DEVASIA MUNDACKAL,
AGED 44 YEARS
C/O NIMEA EBY, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631
5 P. C. MURUGAN,
AGED 47 YEARS
THUNDATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, ETTUMANOOR P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631
6 SUNNY P.A,
AGED 65 YEARS
PAIMBILLIL, MURIKKA, VATHIKUDY, MURICKASSERY,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685604
BY ADVS.
P.SANJAY
A.PARVATHI MENON
BASILA BEEGAM
BIJU MEENATTOOR
DEVIKA S. PRASAD
INDIRA.K.P.
KIRAN NARAYANAN
MEERA R. MENON
W.A.No.607 of 2024 2
MUHAMMED BILAL.V.A
PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH)
RAHUL RAJ P.
RESPONDENTS
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE ETTUMANOOR MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, 1ST FLOOR,
SHOPPING COMPLEX, PRIVATE BUS STAND RD,
ETTUMANOOR, KERALA, PIN - 686631
3 VATHIKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MURICKASSERI
P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685604
BY ADV JOMY K. JOSE
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. C E UNNIKRISHNAN (SPL GP)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.607 of 2024 3
JUDGMENT
============
Dated this the 7th day of May, 2024
Gopinath P., J.
This writ appeal has been filed challenging the
order dated 09.04.2024 in W.P(C)No.14002 of 2024 to the
extent it does not interfere with certain clauses set out in
Annexure-3 to Ext.P5 [S.O(Rt)No.1971/2023/LSGD dated
07.10.2023]. Annexure-3 to Ext.P5 is the model form of the
affidavit to be executed by business owners regarding
waste management facilities at their premises.
2. The primary contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants is that clauses (1) and (3) of
Annexure-3 of Ext.P5 are impractical and cannot be
implemented by the individual business owners. Clause
No.1 requires the individual business owner to undertake
that the business owner will ensure that different
containers are placed to collect organic waste, inorganic
waste and hazardous waste. Clause No.(3) of Annexure-3 of
Ext.P5 requires the business owners to undertake that they
will permit travelling general public also to deposit waste
in the bins to be provided by the business owners as above.
3. Sri.C.E.Unnikrishnan, the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2
and the learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent
would submit that it is clear from the reading of clause
No.(3) in Annexure-3 to Ext.P5 that it refers to the usage of
the waste bins by customers coming to the business
esablishments and not to members of the general public as
apprehended by the petitioner.
4. Regarding clause No.(1), it is the submission of
the learned Special Government Pleader that both the
Plastic Waste Management Rules and the Solid Waste
Management Rules require the maintenance of three
separate waste bins for collecting organic waste, inorganic
waste and hazardous waste. It is also pointed out that the
party appellants are engaged in businesses to which the
Plastic Waste Management Rules and the Solid Waste
Management Rules will apply. The learned Special
Government Pleader also points out that the 2023
amendments to the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act imposes responsibilities on business
establishments to ensure that the premises are kept in a
clean and hygienic condition and they also to have make
necessary arrangements to collect organic waste, inorganic
waste and hazardous waste separately.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants, the learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the State and the learned Counsel appearing
for the 3rd respondent, we are of the view that the
requirements of clause No.(1) of Annexure 3 of Ext.P5
requiring business owners to establish separate bins for
handling organic waste, inorganic waste and hazardous
waste prima facie appears to be in consensus with the
statutory rules.
6. Coming to Clause No.(3) of Annexure-3 to Ext.P5,
in the light of the submissions made by the learned Special
Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for
the 3rd respondent, we deem it appropriate to clarify the
said condition does not require the individual business
owners to ensure that the waste bins to be established by
them separately for organic waste, inorganic waste and
hazardous waste should be permitted to be used by the
members of the general public also. It is clarified that
clause No.(3) in Annexure 3 to Ext.P5 will only be treated
as requiring the business owners to provide the facility to
bonafide customers of the individual business
establishments.
With these observations, the writ appeal stands
disposed of. All contentions raised in the writ petition are
left open.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
smm
