Ban in larger public interest, admn to HC

Chandigarh, October 1
Business and commercial interests must give way to larger public interest, especially in the matters of environment protection, said the Chandigarh administration on the eve of declaring the city “poly bag-free”.

In its reply before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the administration said the challenge to the ban was actuated and motivated purely by business consideration.

The ban, it was asserted, was constitutional, legal, fair, reasonable and valid. It had been imposed by the administration as a matter of conscious policy in the interest of the present and future generations.

It insisted that in spite of the establishment of garbage processing plant, there was urgency and necessity to impose a complete ban on polythene and plastic carry bags in the city.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today issued a notice of motion to the Chandigarh administration for October 22 on a petition challenging the move to completely ban polythene and plastic carry bags.

In their petition, Jarnail Singh and Karnail Singh had challenged the very basis on which a public notice notification in this regard was issued by the administration.

The petitioners, through advocate Anil Pal Singh Shergill, contended that the administration, vide notification dated December 6, 2005, had expressed its intention to ban plastic bags. But it later withdrew the same.

Again, a notification was issued on February 11 on the administration’s intention to completely ban polythene. The petitioners said the notification was the repetition and reproduction of the 2005 notification.

The petitioners said the notifications under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 issued by the Chandigarh administration had been promulgated by the administrator, acting as the Central Government. Such an action was absolutely illegal and bad in law.

The administrator, even though acting as the Central Government and representing the Central Government, could not undertake Acts requiring legislative action, which fell within the preview of specialised part of the government — the “ministry of environment”.

The said action of the administrator and some executive officers of the Chandigarh administration was illegal.

The petitioners said the “Environment (Protection) Act 1986” provided only for regulation of pollution causing industry and did not provide for regulating, controlling and closing small shops and outlets or controlling articles legally in circulation.