Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 330 (PAT)

Rathi Plastic Industries v. State Of Bihar

2003-03-25

AFTAB ALAM

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. N. K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Amarnath Singh, SC 8 representing the State. Also present is Mr. Shivendra Kishore appearing for the Pollution Control Board. 2. On 21.10.2002 the godown of the petitioners situate in Patna City was inspected by a team comprising members of the District Administration and officials from the State Pollution Control Board. In course of inspection a stock of plastic carry bags was found which according to the inspection team was of less than 20 microns in thickness and hence, not conforming to the specifications prescribed under The Recycled Plastic Manufacture and Usage Rules, 1999 framed by the Central Government under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 . 3. From the counter affidavit it appears that the petitioner no.3 also gave in writing that the stock of plastic carry-bags was of less than 20 microns thickness. A copy of his statement in writing is at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The stock of plastic carry-bags consisted of 343 bundles of 50 Kgs each and 27 bundles of 20 Kgs each were taken into seizure and having regard to there bulk, those were not immediately removed but were left in the godown itself after taking of jimmanama from the petitioners. The godown was sealed with the seized plastic bags stored inside. But when no further action was taken even after 5-6 months the petitioners came to this court challenging the action of the respondent authorities in seizing the carry-bags and sealing their godown. 4. From the counter affidavit, it appears that the seizure was made in terms of section 3(2) read with section 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Recycled Plastics Manufacture and Usage, Rules, 1999 framed thereunder. It further appears that on the basis of the seizure a proceeding under the relevant provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act was instituted against the petitioners apart from a criminal complaint in which cognizance is said to have been already taken. 5. Since a proceeding under the Act and a criminal case have already been instituted, this court would not like to enter into the merits of the parties case and to interfere in this matter at this stage. However, the court must take notice of one the grievances of the petitioners with regard to their godown being put under seal by the authorities. However, the court must take notice of one the grievances of the petitioners with regard to their godown being put under seal by the authorities. It is an admitted position that from the date of the seizure on October 10, 2002 the seized stock is lying in the petitioners godown which has been put under seal. As a result the petitioners are unable to use their godown for any purpose. On this issue all that is stated in the counter affidavit is that due to the large bulk of the seized stock, it was not possible for the authorities to remove it and hence, it was left lying in the petitioners godown itseif and the godown was put under seal. 6. To my mind the difficulty faced by the authorities in removing the seized articles can hardly be a ground to punish the petitioners by rendering their godown unusable. The seized articles must, therefore, be removed by the concerned authorities without any delay and in any event not later than one week from today. 7. At the time of opening the godown and the removal of the seized stock the concerned authorities will undoubtedly follow the procedure as envisaged under sections 11 and 12 of the Act; that is to say, samples of the seized plastic carrybags would be given to the petitioners so as the samples may be tested in the Environmental laboratory in terms of section 12 of the Act. 8. In the light of the test report, it will be open to the petitioners to make a prayer for release of the seized articles before the competent authorities. In case such a prayer is made the competent authority will consider the petitioners prayer in accordance with law. 9. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 10. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Amarnath Singh, SC 8.