9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Bench of this Court in Vinod Kumar Jain (supra) pertained to the use of plastic bags and the failure on the part of civic agencies with regard to solid waste management in Delhi. The said petition was filed in public interest. By the said order dated 07.08.2008, the writ petition was disposed of by, inter alia, directing that: iv) Government of NCT of Delhi shall issue an appropriate notification forbidding use of plastic bags in the main markets and local shopping centres apart from hotels, hospitals and malls where use of such bags is already forbidden. 2. Pursuant to the said direction, the Government of NCT of Delhi issued the aforementioned notification dated 07.01.2009, the relevant portion of which reads as under: In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with notification No. U-11030/J/91-UTL dated 10-9-1992 and in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's order dated 7th August, 2008 in WP(C) No. 6456 of 2004, the Lieutenant Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi hereby directs the following: 2. That the use, sale and storage of all kinds of plastic bags shall be forbidden in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and strict compliance. Yours sincerely, Sd/- (M. Dwarakanath) Sr. Sci. Officer 4. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to note that the said notification dated 07.01.2009 was the subject matter of challenge in WP (C) 883/2009 entitled All India Plastic Industries Association and Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi. One of the questions raised in that writ petition was - whether, on merits, the notification dated 07.01.2009 was invalid in law ? The Division Bench hearing the said WP(C) 883/2009, by its judgment and / or order dated 14.07.2009, answered the question in the negative. In other words, the Division Bench upheld the validity of the notification dated 07.01.2009. The Division Bench observed that: There can be no doubt that the limitations imposed are in public interest and have, apparently, been enforced in several other parts of India also. Merely because some commercial interests of the Petitioners are diluted does not mean that there is no public interest in issuing the impugned notification. Consequently, the Division Bench found no good reason to strike down the impugned notification, i.e., the notification dated 07.01.2009, and dismissed the writ petition. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing all affected parties. 5. According to the petitioner, the non-woven bags manufactured by it, would not strictly fall under the category of "plastic bags" since they do not have the essential characteristics of plastic. According to the petitioner, plastic is made of film grade propylene. After the film is formed, it is stitched to make plastic bags. On the other hand, non- woven bags, such as those manufactured by the petitioner, are made of fibre grade propylene (350 FG). The said fibre grade propylene cannot be used to make plastic film and is only used for the purposes of making non-woven fabric / yarn, which, according to the petitioner, is altogether different from plastic. The further contention of the petitioner is that the non-woven propylene fibre bags are breathable and porous and that water can pass through them. Consequently, they would not choke the sewage system. The non-woven polypropylene fibre bags are made out of polypropylene fibres and, although they are not woven, but are bonded together, the end product is essentially a fabric. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Tariff Heading 56.03 of the Central Excise Tariff, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ban in terms of the notification dated 07.01.2009. 8. Mr Parag Tripathi, the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG), who appeared on behalf of the respondent, submitted that the polypropylene non-woven bags are clearly within the ambit of the expression "plastic bags" inasmuch as they contain 98.3% polypropylene. He submitted that this fact, which is mentioned in the impugned clarification, has not been assailed. The clarification dated 20.02.2009, clearly indicates that in order to assess the composition of such kind of bags, testing was conducted at Shriram Institute of Industrial Research, New Delhi, which has clearly indicated that such non-woven bags contained polypropylene to the extent of 98.3%, which, again, is a non-biodegradable material. He submitted that non- woven bags possess similar properties to that of plastic bags. He submitted that use of non-woven polypropylene fibre is as harmful as propylene bags or plastic bags made out of propylene film. Both fall under the category of "plastic" and both are non-biodegradable. With regard to the Central Excise classification, the learned ASG submitted that the said classification as a textile has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion are essentially non- woven polypropylene bags. The definition of polypropylene given in the New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary makes it clear that propylene is a plastic and is used to make moulded objects in various forms. These forms include plates, fibres, films, ropes and toys. Polypropylene fibres are used for the manufacture of these non-woven bags. Polypropylene film is used for making plastic bags as they are normally understood. Whether it is polypropylene fibre or it is polypropylene film, the end product made out of it would remain to be plastic, provided the end product predominantly contains polypropylene, whether fibre or film. In the present case, the admitted position is that the non-woven bags comprise of 98.3% polypropylene. Therefore, the conclusion is simple that the end product is nothing but plastic. Since the products manufactured by the petitioner are admittedly bags, they would fall within the expression "plastic bags". 10. We may also point out that the clarification dated 20.02.2009 was really not necessary. This is so because when we consider the question of prohibiting the use of plastic bags in main markets and local shopping centre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
