The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by various plastic manufacturers and traders challenging the State government's 2019 orders banning single-use plastics in Kerala [Glister Sachet India Private Limited v State of Kerala & ors and connected cases].
The Court upheld the State's authority to regulate and prohibit environmentally harmful materials, noting that such actions are supported by Central legislation and reinforced by a Supreme Court precedent.
While delivering the judgment, Justice Viju Abraham relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Paper Cup Manufacturers Association v State of Tamil Nadu (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1383), which upheld the power of State governments to impose restrictions on single-use plastics under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
"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. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to repel the challenge made in these writ petitions against the Government Orders," the Court said.
The petitions were filed by entities involved in the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of plastic products.
A majority of the petitions had challenged two government orders dated November 27, 2019, and December 17, 2019, prohibiting the single use of plastic items across Kerala, while one petition was filed to implement these orders.
The State defended the ban, with the government pleader submitting that Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act empowered the state to take necessary measures to protect the environment.
The Standing counsel for the Central Pollution Control Board added that the Central government had subsequently framed relevant rules on single-use plastics through notifications issued on August 12, 2021, and July 6, 2022, reinforcing the validity of the State's orders.
Taking note of both the Supreme Court's ruling and the subsequent Central rules, the Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the government orders and dismissed all challenges to the ban.
Notably, one of the petitioners had also sought a direction to refund a fine of ₹10,000 imposed by the local authority, while in another petition, a refund of ₹13.5 lakh was sought from the State, citing losses incurred by the petitioner due to unsold stocks.
The Court rejected both claims, stating that such matters involved disputed factual questions and must be brought before the appropriate jurisdiction and not under writ jurisdiction.
[Read Judgment]