Prani Mitra Samiti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

W.P.No.2509/2013 18.04.2013 Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate Senior with Shri Arpan J.

Pawar, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri R.D.Jain, learned Advocate General with Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Addl.

Advocate General for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.

Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 8 by filing I.A.No.5615/2013 seeking intervention in the matter.

Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Vivek Tankha, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Abhishek Tiwari and Shri Akshay Sapre, learned counsel for Association of Industries, M.P.for intervention.

I.A.No.5615/2013 has been filed on behalf of Distilleries who are engaged in manufacture and supply of Country Liquor Indian Made Foreign Liquor and bottling it in PET Bottles (Polyalkylene Teraphathalates) for selling of liquor as per the policy of the State Government.

It is submitted by Shri Shrivastava that as per policy of the State Government the manufacturer of liquor, both Country and Indian Made Foreign Liquor are entitled to package the liquor in PET Bottle.

In some States, the aforesaid packaging is permissible under the policy and the same is not hazardous in any manner to the public health.

However, their interests are affected if the PET Bottles are banned, therefore, in the matter they have moved an application for intervention.

Another application I.A.No.5349/13 has been filed by Association of Industries Madhya Pradesh for intervention on the ground that if bottling in PET Bottles are banned, the entire industries which are manufacturing PET Bottle will be affected.

It is also submitted that under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, alcoholic drink is included in the definition of food under Section 3(1) W.P.No.2509/2013 (j) and packaging any PET Bottles is permissible under the rules namely Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 and Chapter 2 package and labelling, packaging in PET Bottle is permissible under Para 2 Clause 7 of the Regulation as per the BIS standards.

It is submitted by the applicants that if the PET Bottles are banned, it will affect their industries substantially.

So the intervention may be allowed.

Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner is mainly seeking direction against the State Government for non-permitting the sale of liquor in PET Bottle so intervention applications may be rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the order dated 22.2.2013 in this petition, by which the Division Bench had directed the State Government to file reply and also to order dated 10.4.2013 by which the Division Bench of this Court have directed the State Government not to permit sale of liquor in PET Bottle in the State of Madhya Pradesh until further ordeRs.It is submitted that because of passing of the aforesaid orders both type of persons have file applications for intervention which may be rejected.

The State can very well oppose the petition.

It is also submitted by him that it is not necessary to hear these persons in this matter and as no relief has been prayed against them.

After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that the interests of both applicants are involved in the matter and if PET Bottles are banned for packaging liquor, the manufacturers who are manufacturing liquor, selling and packaging it in PET Bottles, their interest would also be affected.

In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that intervention of both the applicants are necessary in the matter.

Both the intervention applications to intervene in the matter are allowed.

We also allow time to the applicants to file reply and material on record to oppose the matter.

As the application of the W.P.No.2509/2013 State is pending for vacating the interim order, we find it appropriate to direct that such pleadings, if required may be filed by 24.4.2013.

The prayer of the State Government for vacating the interim stay will be considered on the next date of hearing.

Till next date of hearing interim order dated 10.4.2013 shall continue.

At this stage, Shri V.S.Shorti, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Vikram Johri, Advocate standing counsel for respondent No.3 M.P.Pollution Control Board have appeared.

We requested them to take notice of this petition.

Shri Vikram Johri, accepts notice on behalf of Shri Shroti.

Petitioner is directed to serve a complete copy of the petition to Shri Johri, during the couRs.of the day.

Reply, if any, be filed by 24.4.2013.

Be listed for hearing on 25.4.2013, for hearing on pending applications.

C.C.as per rules.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.

Vimla Jain) Acting Chief Justice Judge snb/-