Dismissed

Arvind Pramod Sovani v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Education Department, Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC8 Dec 2016PIL/160/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL challenging a tender notice condition mandating virgin pulp paper, the court observed that agricultural residue-based pulp avoids deforestation and carbon emissions. Accepting the respondent's affidavit statement that agricultural waste is used, the court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The public interest litigation was dismissed; the interim order previously granted was vacated.

Arvind Pramod Sovani Vs State of Maharashtra… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

PIL160-16.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

Public Interest Litigation No.160/2016

¶5

(Arvind Pramod Sovani .vs. State of Maharashtra and another )

¶6

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders

¶7

Mr. A.H. Daga, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. M.S. Naik, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : B.R. Gavai & V.M. Deshpande, JJ. DATED : December 08, 2016.

¶9

The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by a condition imposed in the tender notice of supplying paper from virgin pulp only.

¶10

We were basically impressed with the petition since we are of the view that insisting on manufacturing paper from virgin pulp would have an adverse effect on environment inasmuch as unless the trees are cut, the wood would not be available for virgin pulp.

¶11

However, in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2, a specific statement is made in paragraph 12 which reads thus:-

¶12

"12. I say that virgin pulp has two classification- (i) Agro Virgin pulp and (ii) Wood/tree virgin pulp. In classification (i) the basic raw material utilized are all agricultural

¶13

¶14

PIL160-16.odt

¶15

residue (Agricultural Waste) like wheat straw, rice straw, sarkanda grass, baggasse etc. and in classification (ii) the basic raw material is wood from different sources. I say that the raw material required to manufacture the kind of paper for the text printing purchased by Respondent no.2 is not procured by cutting wood/tree, but is procured from the paper mill manufacturing their paper from Classification No.(i) above which is out of raw material like wheat straw, rice straw, sarkanda, baggasee etc."

¶16

It could thus be clearly seen that in the affidavit itself respondent no.2 has stated that the kind of paper for the text printing purchased by respondent no.2 is not procured by cutting wood/tree, but is procured from the paper mill manufacturing their paper from the basic raw material utilized from agricultural residue.

¶17

We treat the statement made in the affidavit as a undertaking to this Court that the paper which is purchased by respondent no.2 is manufactured by using the basic raw material which is the agricultural residue (agricultural waste) like wheat straw, rice straw, sarkanda grass, baggasse etc. We find that the use of such a paper would in effect be helpful in maintaining a pollution free environment.

¶18

A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that on account of burning of agricultural residue in

¶19

¶20

PIL160-16.odt

¶21

the State of Harayana, the level of pollution in the city of Delhi has substantially increased. We are, therefore, of the view the use of agricultural waste would rather be in the interest of protecting the environment, rather than permitting it to be burnt and generate more carbon-dioxide.

¶22

In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petition. As such public interest litigation is dismissed.

¶23

Needless to state that the interim order granted earlier stands vacated.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

halwai

Arvind Pramod Sovani v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Education Department, Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Pramod Sovani v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Education Department, Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushant Subhash More Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Social Justice and Welfare Dept and Ors.

Smt. Sujata Shamrao Desai and Anr. Vs the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sushant Subhash More Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Social Justice and Welfare Dept and Ors.

Smt. Sujata Shamrao Desai and Anr. Vs the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amol Raghunath Wakade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ms.Geetanjali Tapan Dutta, Vs Public Health Department, Maharashtra State and Ors.

Hirachand Mahadev Ankalgi Vs the Registrar, High Court, Mumbai and Ors.

Panjabrao Sadashivrao Wankhede Vs the District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Akola and Others

Chandrakant S/O. Gajanan Wani and Another Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Maha. State Office and Others

Smt. Chhaya Wd/O. Deepak Chahare Vs Shri. Dhanraj Mane Director of Eduction Higher Education State of Maharashtra Pune and Others

Mohommad Usman Mohommad Hanif Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary Urban Development Department and 3 Others

Baliram Bhiwaji Lichade Vs Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara and Another

Pramod Laxman Jambulkar Vs Sarojini Pramod Jambulkar