IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30630 of 2010(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- FLEX PRINTING OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF KERALA, REGISTERED OFFICE, KUNNAMKULAM, REGISTRATION NO.R-101/10, METRO PLAZA BUILDING, BAIJU ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, A.K.SATHYAN. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA SRI.JOJO PAPPACHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.30732 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) Nos.30630 and 30732 of 2010 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30630/2010 is the Flex Printing Owners Association of Kerala and petitioner in W.P. (C) No.30732/2010 is a candidate contesting the election to Ward No.24 of the Moovattupuzha Municipality which is scheduled to 25th of this month. The grievance of the petitioners is in relation to an order issued by the Kerala State Election Commission, prohibiting the use of flex boards in the ensuing election. 2. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30630/2010 contends that their members are small scale industries which have stocked huge quantity of materials in anticipation of good demand during the election and that, if the prohibition is now implemented, they will suffer huge loss and will be driven out of their business. Petitioners also contend that it was without any material indicating the possibility of environmental WPC.30630&30732/10 : 2 : hazards that the Election Commission has chosen to impose the ban. 3. However, in the statement filed by the Kerala State Election Commission in W.P.(C) No.30630/2010, it is stated that to make the election environmental friendly, they called for a report from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board into use of flex boards, which submitted Annexure-A report. It is stated that, according to the Pollution Control Board, the flex boards are a highly polluting material, which when burnt, emanates dangerous gases and is not a biodegradable material. It is stated that in view of the report dated 20.9.2010 thus submitted by the Pollution Control Board, a press release banning the use of flex boards was issued on the same day itself. According to the Election Commission, a representation requesting for lifting the ban received from the Secretary of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30630/2010 was considered and was rejected by Annexure-B proceedings. 4. Evidently, therefore, it was considering the WPC.30630&30732/10 : 3 : environmental hazards which are likely to be caused by the large scale use of flex boards that the Pollution Control Board has imposed the ban on using such flex boards in the ensuing election to the local bodies in the State. Petitioners have no case that it is not within the power of the Commission to impose the ban, as ordered by the Commission in this case. If so, the only surviving question is whether the Commission had with it sufficient materials while imposing the ban and whether the order was passed with due application of mind. A reading of the statement filed on behalf of the Commission shows that it was on the strength of Annexure-A report received from the Pollution Control Board, that the Commission has issued the press release imposing the ban. The report of the Board, the correctness of which is also not in dispute, proves that the flex boards are an environmental hazard. Thus, not only is it within the power of the Commission but also the Commission had sufficient materials and it was with due application of mind that the Commission WPC.30630&30732/10 : 4 : imposed ban on the use of flex boards. Counsel for the petitioners then argued that the ban imposed violates the fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(9) and 21 in W.P.(C)No.30630/10 and its members. However, no one can have a fundamental right without restriction and against public interest. The ban imposed is permissible both on the grounds of reasonable restriction and public interest. That apart, in my view, use of flex boards violates the fundamental right of the general public under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, I am not persuaded to interfere with the decision of the Commission imposing the ban. Writ petitions fail and they are dismissed accordingly. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks