Gujarat High Court: In a public interest litigation petition against non-disposal of plastic waste, the Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal, CJ., and Pranav Trivedi, J. noted that facilities engaged in management of plastic waste did not have their required certifications, violating the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, hence, the Court directed the GPCB to call for the information of all sites, from each of the local body as defined under Rule 3(w) of the Rules, 2016, which include municipal corporation, municipality, Nagar Palika, Nagar panchayat, municipal council including notified area committee and the relevant gram panchayat where the management of plastic waste is entrusted to private agency or facility is created by the local body on its own, and thereafter, inspection be carried out on all such sites in a phased manner and if any of such site is found to be running in violation of the Rules, 2016, appropriate measures be taken by issuing show-cause notice and imposition of penalty after giving opportunity of hearing to the person concerned.
On perusal of the statement of the Regional Officer, GPCB, Regional Office, Junagadh, the Court said that it was more than evident that the submission of the annual report and forwarding the same to the GPCB remained only a paper transaction and is a mere eyewash insofar as the requirement of the Rules’ 2016. The Court also reiterated on the constitution of a State Level Monitoring Committee by the State Government for effective implementation of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016.
In response to order dated 03-09-2024 directing the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) to make an inspection of the facilities created and hired by Junagadh Municipal Corporation for plastic waste disposal, an affidavit was filed by the Regional Officer, Junagadh, wherein it was submitted that three sites were inspected.
The Court noted that, in the affidavit, it was submitted that the first Material Recovery Facility (MRF) of the Junagadh Municipal Corporation (‘JMC’), Hajiyani Baag, is a temporary storage of waste collected from the wards. The Material Recovery Facility owned by the JMC and managed by Zero Waste Solution (hired by the Corporation) did not have Consent-to-Establish (CTE) or Consolidated Consent and Authorisation (CCA) under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, which is mandatory in view of Rule 12, which casts responsibility upon the CPCB, SPCB and Pollution Control Committee terming them as prescribed authority for enforcement of the provisions of the Rules.
It was also noted that on the other site, engaged in the manual segregation and shredding/chipping of plastic scrap by the JMC, no document/book/diary were available at the site for verification of sales/purchase data. Similar was the scenario for the third site. The GPCB issued show-cause notice to all these three units, seeking a response as to why legal action was not initiated against them under the provisions of the Act, which may include suspension/closure of the unit.
The Court on noting the revelations made in the above-mentioned report and on perusal of the statements of the Regional Officer, said that both the authorities, viz. JMC and the Regional Officer, GPCB were in utter defiance of Rules 6, 12 and 13 of the Rules, 2016. The responsibility of the local body fixed by Rule 6 for setting up of infrastructure for segregation, collection, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of the plastic waste either on its own or by engaging agencies was not discharged in a proper manner. The way these three facilities were created/hired/engaged by JMC, it was evident that the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation was oblivious of his responsibility being the head of JMC under the Plastic Waste Management Rules.
Hence, the Court directed the Municipal Commissioner, JMC to explain the non-compliance of the Rules. The Court also directed them to place on record the entire material for establishment of MRF by the JMC and the contract granted to the two private facilities for processing of the plastic waste. The contract papers for engagement of Zero Waste Solution for managing MRF facility owned by the JMC were also directed to be brought on record along with the process of engagement of these three private players for management of plastic waste. The entire original record pertaining to the grant of contract shall be placed before us. The annual reports submitted by the contractor and the Corporation as per the requirement of Rule 17 in Form-IV and Form-V shall also be brought on record along with the affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner.
Regarding the annual report, the Court highlighted that the purpose of submission of annual report by a person engaged in recycling or processing of plastic waste and the local body is to ensure enforcement of the provisions of the Rules, 2016, which is the responsibility of the GPCB and CPCB being the prescribed authority under Rule 12. Hence, the Court said that the GPCB utterly failed in discharging its responsibility fixed under the Rules, 2016 and in all respect in enforcement of the rules.
[Amit Manibhai Panchal v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 3547, decided on: 17-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Adv. Amit M. Panchal, Adv. Angesh A. Panchal,
For the respondent: Advocate General Kamal B. Trivedi, AGP Vinay Bairagra, Senior Advocate Mitesh Amin, Adv. HS Munshaw, Adv. Siddhant R Shah, Senior Advocate Manisha Lavkumar Shah, Adv. Siddharth S. Rami
