We received encouraging support with the Court Order dated November 18, 2014 regarding our litigation to protect the Plastic Cows in India.
ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.154 OF 2012
KARUNA SOCIETY FOR ANIMALS & NATURE & ORS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for impleadment and interim relief and office report)
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 19/2014
(With appln.(s) for permission to appear and argue in person and seeking permission to file additional documents)
Date: 18/11/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
For Petitioner(s) Attorney General For India (Not Present)
W.P.(C)154/2012 Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv.
Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.
Ms. Supriya Jain, Adv.
Ms. Niharika, Adv.
For M/s. K. J. John & Co.
W.P.(C) No.19/2014 Mr. S.N. Bhardwaj, In-person
For Respondent(s)
NDMC Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Surya Kant, Adv.
CPCB Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv.
Mr. Madhur Panjwani, Adv.
UOI Ms. S.K. Bajwa, Adv.
Ms. Abhinav Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv.
Andhra Pradesh Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
Himachal Pradesh Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv.
Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG
Ms. Nupur Choudhary, Adv.
Ms. Vivekta Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Rathee, Adv.
For Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv.
Karnataka Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv.
Gujarat Ms. Jesal, Adv.
Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Giss Antony, Adv.
Ms. Puja Singh, Adv.
For Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
AIPMA Mr. Kundan Kr. Mishra, Adv.
Mr. K.V. Muthu Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Kr. Mishra, Adv.
NDTV Mr. D.K. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Sengupta,Adv.
West Bengal Mr. G. Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Anip Sachthey,Adv.
Kerala Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv.
Madhya Pradesh Mr. Ankit Kr. Lal, Adv.
Mr. Mishra Saurabh, Adv.
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Adv.
Jharkhand Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv.
Rajasthan Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG
Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Adv.
Assam Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv.
Mr. Navnit Kumar, Adv.
For M/s. Corporate Law Group
Punjab Mr. Ajay Bansal, AAG
Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv.
Mr. B. S. Banthia,Adv.
Mr. Irshad Ahmad,Adv.
Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv.
Ms. C. K. Sucharita,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
W.P.(C) No.154 of 2012
The present writ petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The petitioners are seeking the following directions, which are as under:-
“(a)(i) the Respondent No.1 to issue appropriate directions under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 prohibiting the use, sale and disposal of plastic bags in all municipalities and municipal corporations;
(ii) the Respondent No.1 to issue appropriate directions to all State Governments and municipalities/ municipal corporations to forthwith prohibit and/or to phase out in a time bound manner the “open garbage disposal system” and to remove open garbage receptacles;
(iii) the Respondent No.1 to issue appropriate directions to State Governments, municipal corporations and municipalities requiring them to implement door to door garbage collection and to ensure that waste storage facilities are built and managed such that animals are not allowed to move around in the vicinity of such facilities;
(iv) the Respondent No.1 issue appropriate directions to State Government/Municipal Corporation and municipalities to require segregation of all plastic waste across the municipal solid waste collection and disposal chain/systems; and
(v) the Respondent State Governments to issue appropriate directions prohibiting the use, sale and disposal of plastic bags in all municipalities and municipal corporations within their territory.
(vi) the Respondent No.1 and the 19th Respondent to provide animal shelters, rescue homes and veterinary services for stray cattle to provide amelioration for suffering animals;
(b) award to the Petitioners cost of and relating to the present Petition.”
The State of Rajasthan has filed its affidavit and they have made certain averments which are contrary to the writ petition.
Further, in rejoinder to the counter affidavit so filed, the petitioners, insofar as State of Rajasthan is concerned, have stated as under :-
“State of Rajasthan
24. I say that the situation in the State of Rajasthan is also inexcusable. I say that in the counter affidavit filed by the State of Rajasthan, it has been stated that the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 2009 imposes a ban on use of bags less than 20 microns. It has also been stated that successful steps have been taken for implementation of Plastic Wastes (management and Handling) Rules 2011 and that projects for dealing with solid waste are underway. I say that photographs taken in various areas of Udaipur, Jodhpur and Jaipur in the month of February falsify the claim of the State of Rajasthan.
25. The photograph of Pula, near Celebration Mall, Udaipur was taken by Neha Banyal on 12.02.2014. The photograph for Devi Nagar, Jaipur was taken by Joy Gardner on 16-2-2014. The photograph for Jodhpur was taken by Rajni Ramchandran on 22-2-2014. Photographs for these locations in State of Rajasthan is annexed to the rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the petitioners as Annexure – R/6 at pages 27 to 29. I say that the striking feature about these photographs is that apart from cattle, these photographs reveal pigs feeding on plastic in search of food. I submit that health hazards of these animals remain absolutely unnoticed to human eye and this is extremely dangerous for animals.”
Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners, would inform us that though the State of Rajasthan has issued the notification dated 21.07.2010, in exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act”) for banning the manufacture, use, store, import sell or transport plastic carry bags within its territory, with effect from 01.08.2010, nothing seems to have been done by the State in implementing the aforesaid notification.
However, the learned Additional Advocate General for Rajasthan, Shri Shiv Mangal Sharma, would submit that the State has been effectively implementing the notification dated 21.07.2010, as issued by them.
In order to ascertain the correct position in this regard, we intend to constitute a Committee of three learned counsel, who regularly appear before this Court, to visit some of the important cities in the State of Rajasthan and submit an appropriate report before us, inter alia, indicating whether the State of Rajasthan is seriously implementing the notification dated 21.07.2010 in their State.
For the above purpose, we constitute an expert Committee of the following learned counsel who will report the findings to this Court :-
Ms. Bina Madhavan, Advocate
Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, Advocate
Mr. D.V. Raghu Vamsy, Advocate
The State Government shall provide them with the necessary transportation, expenses and other facilities befitting to the status of the representatives of this Court.
For considering the issue in respect of the State of Rajasthan, call this matter on 16.12.2014.
Insofar as State of Karnataka is concerned, in the response affidavit filed by the petitioners at paragraph 26, it is stated as under :
“State of Karnataka
26. I say that the situation in the State of Karnataka shows an appalling state of affairs. I submit that there is absolutely no effort to keep apart the waste to eliminate interaction of innocent cattle with plastic bags. I say that photographs have been taken in various parts of the State in February 2014 which establish that the reliefs sought in this writ petition are absolutely germane for State of Karnataka. The areas where photographs were taken include (i) Domlur village, Bangalore, Karnataka (taken by Manvi Rao on 22-2-2014)(ii) Doddendekundi, Bangalore, Karnataka (taken by Dr. Arun Rangasamy on 6-2-2014) (iii) K Kamraj Road, Opp Sriraj Lassi Bar, Bangalore (taken by Poornmima Harish on 24-2-2014) (iv) Sanjay Nagar, Bangalore, Karnataka (taken by Vaivaswatha N on 21-2—2014) (vi) Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore (taken by Vishal Pradhan on 21-02-2014). Photographs taken at the above-mentioned locations are annexed to the rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the petitioners as Annexure – R/7 at pages 30 to 35. The State of Karnataka has not filed a counter affidavit.”
Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka, has filed an additional affidavit sworn in by the Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka, on 27.03.2014.
In the said affidavit, it is stated that the State of Karnataka has constituted a State Level Advisory Committee for monitoring and implementation of Plastic Waste Management in the State on 25.08.2011 and the Committee would consist of, apart from the Chairman, eleven other members.
It is further stated by him that the Committee had met on 12.12.2011, 24.02.2012 and 28.07.2012 to discuss in detail regarding the implementation of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. Thereafter, it was not clarified as to whether the Committee had at least met once between 28.07.2012 and till the date the State has filed an affidavit before this Court. A mere constitution of a Committee and the numerous meetings conducted by the Committee to discuss the various means for implementation of the Rules will not alone solve the problem.
The Committee should not only formulate ways and means to effectively implement the Rules but also to oversee that these Rules are implemented with all seriousness by the respective stakeholders. Since that has not been done in the instant case, we now direct the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Karnataka to be present before this Court on 09.12.2014 to facilitate us to pass appropriate orders insofar as State of Karnataka is concerned.
The office report would indicate that respondent Nos. 2 (State of Andhra Pradesh), 4 (State of Bihar), 6 (State of Maharashtra), 10 (State of Tamil Nadu), 11 (State of Orissa), 12 (State of Gujarat), 14 (State of Uttar Pradesh), 16 (State of Goa), 19 (The Animal Welfare Board of India), 20 (Anantpur Municipal Corporation), 21 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) and 25 (NDTV Ltd.) have not filed any reply to the prayers made by the petitioners in the writ petition.
If for any reason, the aforesaid respondents do not file any response within two weeks’ time from today, we would direct the Chief Secretaries of each State to be present before us to facilitate us to pass appropriate orders in this regard. If, for any reason, they are not present before this Court on the date of next hearing, we will not hesitate to grant the prayers sought by the petitioners in the writ petition.
It is further directed that Union of India shall file its appropriate response to the prayers made in the writ petition within two weeks’ time finally.
Mr. Pratap Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to amend the cause title of the petition suitably forthwith. He is also permitted to take out notice on the learned counsel appearing for the respective States in dasti.
List on 09.12.2014. Writ Petition No.19/2014 shall also be listed on the said date for consideration.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Vinod Kulvi)
Sr.P.A. Assistant Registrar