Will Help Meet Global Standards: Karnataka HC Upholds Union Govt Notification Imposing Quality Control On Polyethylene Used To Make Plastic
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a Government of India notification dated 15-04-2021 which imposes quality control on polyethylene, used to manufacture different types of plastic. A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the plea filed by All India HDPE/PP Woven Fabric Manufacturers Association and said that if the product was sought to be exported under the “Made in...
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a Government of India notification dated 15-04-2021 which imposes quality control on polyethylene, used to manufacture different types of plastic.
A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the plea filed by All India HDPE/PP Woven Fabric Manufacturers Association and said that if the product was sought to be exported under the “Made in India” tag, then quality insistence from the threshold would ensure that the final product would meet all the necessary global standards.
The petitioners argued that high-density polyethene was a plastic polymer which is commonly used by a variety of consumers including industrial units. It was argued that the material was more resistant to cracking and less likely to suffer from stress-induced failure.
Petitioner pointed out that low-density polyethylene was widely used in packaging like foils, trays and plastic bags for both food and non-food purposes.
The association and its members submitted that they were importing raw materials required for the manufacture and supply of high-density polyethylene and low-density polyethylene products and after such import were supplying finished goods all over the country not restricted to domestic consumption.
It was submitted that the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Union of India had issued a quality control order seeking to impose certain restrictions on low-density polyethylene, linear low-density polyethylene and high-density polyethylene. The quality control was such that the aforesaid polyethylenes should conform to the corresponding Indian standard and shall bear the standard mark under a licence from the Bureau of Indian Standards ('BIS' for short) as per Schedule I and Schedule-II of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Conformity Assessment) Regulations, 2018.
The association argued that the notification was aimed at one single purpose, to help Reliance Industries, as Reliance Industries has a monopoly in the manufacture of linear and a particular ingredient 'granule' that is necessary for production of plastic.
It was argued that since there was no other player in the market, all the plastic manufacturers would have to line up with Reliance Industries only.
Further, it was argued that such conditions ought to have been imposed on a finished product and not on raw material and that only if finished product quality control was imposed, it would be in tune with the law and not as was done in the case at hand with raw materials.
The petition was opposed by the respondents arguing that the petitioner/Association did not want to bring quality into the country.
It was submitted that any interference would lead to cheap raw material being imported, as was done earlier, which would lead to several hazardous issues including environmental ones.
It was argued that the Government of India had taken these steps to bring in certain quality measures by way of a policy decision. Respondents pointed out that the Court would not interfere with a policy decision particularly, economic policy or a policy to regulate quality, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and that the claim that there is only one player in the market, was a false submission.
The bench rejected the submission of the association that there was no nexus with the production sought to be achieved by imposing quality standards on a raw material, terming it to be preposterous.
It then said “If quality is not in the raw material, it is ununderstandable as to how it can be found in a finished product. If raw material lacks quality it is trite that the finished product would be sub-standard. Therefore, the said submission is sans countenance, as it is fundamentally flawed.”
Rejecting the contention that the notification leads to monopolisation in the hands of the dominant manufacturer in polymer – the Reliance group, the court noted that a chart of 50 manufacturers in the same industry, which includes manufacturers in India and abroad and 12 manufacturers of raw material, had been placed before it.
It further observed that the Notification impugned sought to achieve a seal of Bureau of Indian Standard ('BIS seal') in every raw material that is brought, to the manufacture of a final product for standardisation and quality certification of goods.
In holding that the Court could not sit on a review of a government policy decision, the Bench opined:
“For a Judge in terms of his inputs, cannot assume the role of a supreme adviser to the administration on policies governing innumerable activities of the State, particularly in today's context of over-expanding horizons which come into the ken of such policy-making.”
It was further held that if the quality emerges right from the beginning, till the finished product, under the 'Make in India programme' it is only then that the country would be able to compete with others. A step towards that will not be interfered with by this Court except, that if the step towards that, depicts palpable and demonstrable arbitrariness, which is neither pleaded nor present, it added.
Dismissing the petition the court emphasised that quality control in plastic manufacturing always refers to the process of monitoring and inspecting various stages of the manufacturing process to ensure that the final plastic products meet certain standards of quality.
It concluded that therefore, every raw material that is sought to be brought under BIS is only to make it a quality final plastic product, for it would not become hazardous to the environment and the general public including meeting health and safety standards maintained in all walks of life.
Appearance: Advocate N Raghavendra Rao for Petitioner.
Deputy Solicitor General H.Shanthi Bhushan a/w CGC Sadhana Desai for Respondents
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
Case Title: All India HDPE/PP Woven Fabric Manufacturers Association AND The Secretary Government of India, Competition Commission of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition 287 OF 2024