Parity in regulatory exemption led to confirmation of relief under the Plastic Wastes rules for a similarly placed unit.

Parity with earlier writ petitions justified extending exemption from the operation of the Plastic Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 to a later petitioner where the facts were materially identical and the petitioner was a 100% export-oriented unit. The Court followed earlier orders granting exemption, treated the pending review as not displacing that approach, and confirmed interim relief on the same basis. The operative principle is that similarly placed parties should receive the same regulatory relief unless a legally sustainable distinction is shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption from the operation of the Plastic Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 on parity with earlier similarly placed writ petitioners.

Analysis: The petitioner's case was treated as materially identical to earlier writ petitions involving 100% export-oriented units. The Court relied on the earlier orders in which exemption from the operation of the 2011 Rules had been granted, and noted that parity should be extended to the petitioner as well. The pending review was noted, but the earlier exemption-based approach was followed and the interim exemption was confirmed.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the same exemption from the operation of the 2011 Rules, and the writ petition was allowed in terms of the earlier order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later writ petition involves materially identical facts to earlier cases in which exemption from the operation of a regulatory rule was granted, parity requires similar relief to be extended unless a legally sustainable distinction is shown.

---