TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY PAPER CUP MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 1133 · Decided: 20-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 1133 : 2023 INSC 952
1133
CASE DETAILS
TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY PAPER CUP 
MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS
(Civil Appeal No(s). 8536 of 2022 etc.)
OCTOBER 20, 2023 
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND 
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justiﬁ ed in 
dismissing the writ petitions ﬁ led by the appellants-association representing 
manufacturing units of ‘reinforced’ paper cups, and non-woven plastic 
bags, challenging the government order banning manufacture, storage, 
supply, transport, sale, distribution, and use of plastic coated teacups and 
non-woven bags.
Environment Protection Act, 1986 – ss. 5, 23 – Plastic coated teacups 
and non-woven bags – Government Order banning manufacture, 
storage, supply, transport, sale, distribution, or use of plastic coated 
teacups and non-woven bags – Challenged to – High Court upheld the 
ban – Interference with:
Held: Though the mandate of the 1986 Rule calls for predecisional 
hearing, on facts, given the eﬄ  ux of time, the resultant likely injury to 
the public in the event the notiﬁ cation is interfered with, interests of 
justice require that such infraction should not result in the invalidation of 
the notiﬁ cation – By composition itself, plastic coated teacups are non-
biodegradable, and there is immense diﬃ  culty in their recycling, as it requires 
appropriate collecting mechanisms, strict segregation – Given that there is 
scientiﬁ c basis for the ban, and it is the State Government’s policy decision 
to ban numerous categories of single use plastic products, in public interest, 
there is no reason for interference with the High Court’s ﬁ ndings on the 
ban of reinforced papercups – Association’s right u/Art. 19(1)(g) has been 
restricted; but in the larger interest of the general public to enjoy a pollution 
1134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
free environment the restriction was reasonable as per Art. 19(6), thus, 
upheld – As regards non-woven bags, the amended 2016 Rules now allow 
non-woven bags above 60 GSM to be manufactured and used – Centre has 
found a way to regulate it, rather than ban it – In view thereof, the Tamil 
Nadu Pollution Control Board directed to consider the case of non-woven 
bags afresh in light of amended 2016 Rules – Environment (Protection) 
Rules, 1986 – Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 . [Para 41, 46, 54]
Doctrines/Principles – Principles of natural justice – Compliance 
of – Rule of prior hearing – Dispensation with – When:
Held: Principles of natural justice have to be complied with wherever 
the law requires that course – Silence of a statute or rule about natural 
justice, nevertheless, calls for a minimum hearing – There are cases, where 
the court permits post decisional hearing – There can be emergencies or 
urgent situations calling for immediate or expedient action, which cannot be 
delayed – In such eventualities, the rule of prior hearing can be dispensed 
with. [Para 39]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (2001) 2 
SCC 62 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 249; Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. v. Sir Shadi Lal 
Enterprises Ltd. (2011) 1 SCC 640 : [2010] 15 SCR 156; Victoria Memorial 
Hall v. Howra Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others (2010) 3 SCC 732 : 
[2010] 3 SCR 190; Basavaiah (Dr) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Ors. (2010) 8 
SCC 372 : [2010] 9 SCR 227; Cellular Operators Association of India & 
Ors., v. TRAI (2016) 7 SCC 703 : [2016] 9 SCR 1; M.C. Mehta v. Union of 
India (2004) 12 SCC 118 : [2004] 3 SCR 126; AP Pollution Control Board 
v. Prof. M. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors (2001) 2 SCC 62 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 
249; Goodwill Plastic Industries v. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2013 
SCC Online NGT 71; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388 : 
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 12; Association for Environment Protection v. State 
of Kerala (2013) 7 SCC 226 : [2013] 7 SCR 352; Fomento Resorts and 
Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins (2009) 3 SCC 571 : [2009] 3 SCR ; M.I. 
Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhyen Shyam Sahu (1999) 6 SCC 464 : [1999] 3 
SCR 1066; Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 465 : [1984] 
3 SCR 676; Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE (2015) 8 SCC 519 : [2015] 6 
1135
SCR 437; Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa (2005) 3 SCC 409 : [2005] 
2 SCR 520; P.P. Agrawal v. State Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 : [2006] 
1 Suppl. SCR 454 – referred to. 
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARAN
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.