M/s Popular Plastic & others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
WRIT PETITION, 8182 of 2017, Judgment Date: Sep 06, 2018
Law Laid Down:
The State Act i.e. the Madhya Pradesh Jaiv Anaashya Apashishta (Niyantran) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2017 dealing with the elimination of plastic waste which has a larger public interest involved is not irreconcilable with the Central Rules i.e. Plastic Wastes Management Rules, 2016, which deals with minimization of plastic waste, as the State Act goes a step further than the Central Law. Therefore, within the State, both the Central Law and the State Law can be read harmoniously.
The State was competent to enact the State Act as it is in relation to public health falling in Entry 6 of the List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. For the proposed amendment, since the State Act was affecting the Central Rules, the sanction of the President cannot be said to be of no effect as the same was required in terms of proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution read with proviso to Article 213(1) of the Constitution of India. Such sanction was the Constitutional requirement and having granted so, the State Act cannot be disputed on the ground that it contravenes any of the provisions of the Central Rules.
The Law made by the State will prevail notwithstanding the Central Law as the sanction has been sought from the President not for the reason that the proposed legislation falls in List-III of the Seventh Schedule but for the reason that it affects the freedom of trade and commerce granted under Article 304(b) of the Constitution. Once the President has granted sanction, the State Law will prevail over the Central Law and the Notification dated 24.05.2017 (Annexure P-3) issued under the State Act cannot be said to be illegal or without the Legislative competence.
Relied - Seven Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2017) 3 SCC 1 (Krishna Kumar Singh and Another v. State of Bihar and others). The reasoning given in order of the National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi on 08.08.2013 in Application No.26 of 2013 (THC) (Goodwill Plastic Industries and another etc. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others etc.) in respect of similar Notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration is also Approved.
Once the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23 of the Central Act has delegated its powers vested in it under Section 5 to the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State Act is a valid piece of legislation in terms of delegation of the Central Government as well to direct the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process; which would include prohibition to use carry bags. Thus, the State Act cannot be said to be beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature.
Repugnancy or inconsistency between the provisions of Central and State enactments can occur in two situations. The first, in case of a Central and a State Act on any field of entry mentioned in List III of the Seventh Schedule. In such situation, the Central Law will prevail in terms of Article 254(1) and further subject to proviso to Article 254(2). But, in terms of proviso to Article 304(b), the State could legislate on the subjects falling in List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India with the previous sanction of the President.
M/s Popular Plastic & others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others