( 2025:HHC:17306 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.9230 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd June, 2025 Distributors Alliance of Himachal Pradesh .......Petitioner versus State of H.P and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Thakur and Mr.Shubham Singh Guleria, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.Sushant Keprate, Addl. A.G., Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Addl.A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Balram Sharma, Dy.SGI with Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. Mr.Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.5. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) Heard. The petitioner, which is a registered society under the Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006, has filed the instant petition for grant of the following reliefs:- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:17306 ) 2 “i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned Notification dated 29.03.2025, issued by Respondent No. 1, as being ultra vires the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, including the Plastic Waste Management Rules framed thereunder; and ii. Declare that the Respondent No. 1 has acted without and/or in excess of jurisdiction, and in contravention of the statutory mandate under the Himachal Pradesh Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act, 1995, thereby rendering the impugned Notification dated 29.03.2025 illegal, arbitrary and void ab initio; iii. Declare that the impugned Notification dated 29.03.2025 is void and unenforceable in law, for being in direct conflict with the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Rules framed thereunder; or 2. A perusal of the aims and objects of the society clearly goes to indicate that the members of the association have no locus-standi whatsoever to file the instant petition. Moreover, if at all, someone is aggrieved, it would be an individual and not the society per se. 3. Similar issues have already been considered and decided by this Court in number of judgments and reference in this regard can conveniently be made to CWP No.3934 of 2024 titled as Kala Amb Chamber of Commerce & Industries vs. H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and another, decided on 30.04.2025. 4. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed for want of locus-standi. However, dismissal of this petition would ( 2025:HHC:17306 ) 3 not in any way affect the rights of the members of the petitioner society from agitating individual grievance in accordance with law. 5. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge June 03, 2025 ( Sushil Kukreja ) (naveen) Judge