National Green Tribunal
Dr. Subhash C. Pandey vs Municipal Corporation on 19 July, 2021
Item No. 02
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 111/2013(CZ)
Dr. Subhash C. Pandey Applicant(s)
Versus
Municipal Corporation Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 19.07.2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Dr. Subhash C. Pandey (In-Person)
For Respondent(s): Mr. Sachin K. Verma, Adv.
Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv.
Ms. Parul Bhodoria, Adv.
ORDER
1. Originally the application was filed in 2013, and the matter was taken up on 11.12.2013 and it was observed that :-
"This application has raised an important issue regarding non observance and flagrant violation of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the „MSW Rules, 2000‟) framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3, 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Central Act 29 of 1986). Initially the application in question was confined to the non-observance of MSW Rules, 2000 by the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal (BMC) which was utilising the site at Village Bhanpura in Bhopal Municipal area for the aforesaid purpose. However, since the issue involved could not be confined just to the municipal area in Bhopal, the Tribunal decided to enlarge the scope of the proceedings by seeking information on the observance of the MSW Rules, 2000 in each of the three States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh falling within the jurisdiction of the Central Zonal Bench of the National Green Tribunal at Bhopal and by our order dated 31.10.2013 notices were issued to all the three States in question with a direction to furnish 1 information regarding implementation and observance of the mandatory provisions of the MSW Rules, 2000 by the municipalities within the respective States. Copy of this order was sent to the State Pollution Control Boards as well as the Chief Secretaries of all the three States.
In pursuance of our notice, Misc. Application No. 160 of 2013 has been filed on behalf of the BMC seeking time to furnish the required information and submit the reply within 15 days as it was stated that the officers concerned were busy with the election duty assigned and as such the reply could not be filed. M.A.no. 160/2013 is disposed of.
The prayer made in the application is accordingly allowed and two weeks‟ time is allowed to file the reply.
We find that only the PCBs of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have submitted their replies which are ordered to be taken on record. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board (CECB) Shri Shivendu Joshi seeks further time to submit the reply on behalf of the CECB.
From the two replies which have been filed by the Rajasthan PCB and MPPCB, prima facie it goes to show that observance of the MSW Rules, 2000 is only there to be flouted. In both the cases, we find, prima facie, they were not followed up with prosecution of concerned Authorities/persons for violation of MSW Rules, 2000 under Section 15 of the Act of 1986 after notices under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 had been given. We also find that awareness about the existence of the MSW Rules, 2000 and their compliance, to a great extent is lacking and in some cases, even the awareness with regard to the responsibility for implementation and observance of the MSW Rules, 2000 is also lacking. Rule 4 of the MSW Rules, 2000 provides that every municipal authority shall be responsible for the implementation of the provisions of the Rules including providing infrastructure for collection, discharge, segregation, transportation as well as disposal of the municipal solid waste. Under Rule 5 of the MSW Rules, 2000 the Secretary in charge of the Department of Urban Administration and Development in the concerned State shall be the overall responsible authority for the enforcement of the Rules and the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District shall have the overall responsibility within the territorial limits of his/her jurisdiction.2
We find that the PCBs, in their correspondence, several times, have drawn the attention of the Commissioner and the Principal Secretary of the Urban Administration and Development Department in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh States regarding the implementation of the MSW Rules, 2000 and in Madhya Pradesh, a meeting was held in the year 2009 presided over by the Principal Secretary, Department of Housing & Environment and certain decisions by way of resolution were recorded in the Minutes of the Meeting held in April, 2009. But the implementation with regard to the same has not been seen on ground.
The MSW Rules, 2000 under Rule 8 provide for the State Pollution Control Boards to send their Annual Report to the Central Pollution Control Board. Since, our previous order we have not issued notice to the CPCB, we would direct issuance of notice to the CPCB and the Learned Standing Counsel for CPCB Shri Sandeep Singh is directed to accept notice on behalf of the CPCB. Rule 8 of the MSW Rules, 2000 requires the CPCB to prepare a consolidated Annual Review Report with regard to the observance of the Rules and make its recommendation to the Central Government. We would therefore, direct the CPCB through its Counsel that while submitting their reply, to place before the Tribunal the action taken by way of their recommendations under Rule 8 and what action the CPCB has taken if it found non-observance, non-compliance and violation of the Rules 2000 in various States by the Municipal Authorities.
We find from the replies that have been filed on behalf of the PCBs in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh that despite attention of the Government being drawn through the Principal Secretaries, Urban Administration and Development Department, it appears that the importance regarding observance and compliance of the MSW Rules, 2000 has not percolated down and the Government does not appear to be sensitized to the aforesaid issues as in the cases of several environmental issues which directly affect the people of the State. The mandate of Article 48(A) has to be understood by all the concerned and the State cannot just stand and be a silent spectator by contending that they have framed the Rules under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and it is for the local authorities (municipalities) to comply. The responsibility under Rule 5 is of the State Government. The observance and compliance of the MSW Rules, 2000 requires setting up of designated sites in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules and the preparation of the said sites in the manner provided under the Rules with 3 requisite infrastructure and human resources as well as financial grant, wherever necessary, since most of the local authorities are now dependent on the State grants with limited resources at their own command. It would be the responsibility of the State, in our opinion, not only to issue directions for the observance and the compliance of the Rules but at the same time provide necessary finances required for man power requirement, infrastructure, equipment, etc. to the local authorities as some of them may not be having requisite resources of their own and insufficient funds cannot be an excuse for compliance of the Law.
From the information which has been furnished by the MP Pollution Control Board in their reply, we find that initially the Bhopal Municipal Corporation was granted permission provisionally vide letter of the MP Pollution Control Board dated 23.11.2004 to operate the waste process and waste disposal facilities at Village Jhirnia, Revenue Survey No. 115 near Narsingharh Main Road and at no point of time permission, provisionally or otherwise, was granted for the present site at Village Bhanpura which is being utilized for the aforesaid purpose. The Member Secretary, MP Pollution Control Board shall explain by way of supplementary affidavit in what circumstances the present site is being allowed to utilise at Bhanpura contrary to the permission granted for Jhirnia site in the year 2004. It must further, come in the reply that why when no extension for utilising the site at Jhirnia for which provisional authorisation was granted on 23.11.2004, was sought after 31.10.2007 was the present site being used for this purpose. In such circumstances why the Secretary, Urban Administration & Development Department, Madhya Pradesh; Commissioner, Urban Administration & Development Department, Madhya Pradesh and Municipal Commissioner, Bhopal Municipal Corporation be not dealt in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 read with Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act,1986 and also made personally liable and fined apart from the provisions of Section 15 of the Act 1986 for their wilful neglect to observe the Rules of 2000 as well as for total contravention and violation of the provision of the Act and the Rules in this behalf despite having been informed under Section 5 of the Act of 1986. They would be at liberty to submit their replies in writing by 30.01.2014. Let notices be issued to the above officers in their personal capacity to show cause.4
From the reply submitted by the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board we find that despite deficiencies having been pointed out by the Member Secretary and notices under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 issued in the letters dated 10.08.2011, filed as Annexure R-10 and R-11, both, the then Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Jaipur and Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department, Rajasthan State at the relevant time in August, 2011 shall show cause as to what compliance they have made to the points which have been raised in the letter of the Pollution Control Board and if not why they should not be personally held responsible and proceeded with in terms of Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act to be punished with imprisonment and fined as provided under the Act.
Since we find that matters pertaining to the management and observance of the MSW Rules, 2000 is not receiving adequate attention, with a view to impress upon the respective State Governments as well as Pollution Control Boards which are the watch dogs under the provision of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for observance and compliance of Rules 2000 and as overall responsibility lies with the Pollution Control Boards, for the protection of environment, their Member Secretaries and the Zonal Officers of the Central Pollution Control Board alongwith the Principal Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department of all the three States i.e. Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh & Chhattisgarh to appear in person and submit information on each of the Municipalities in the State showing the following :
"The name of municipality, the District in which the said municipality is situated in the State, the nature and category of the municipality, status with regard to compliance and observance of the MSW Rules, 2000 pointing out deficiencies, if any, observed during the last inspection and what steps the Local Authority as well as the State Government intends to take for the implementation and observance of the MSW Rules, 2000 in that behalf including providing financial assistance to each of the municipalities and necessary technical knowhow in that behalf and any other information which the Pollution Control Board/ State Government wishes to furnish with regard to the local authority / municipality. Above all, in respect of each municipality the information shall also be furnished whether the present site has the 5 approval of the Pollution Control Board and the necessary Environmental Clearance in that behalf has been obtained and the duration for which the permission subsists, if at all permission has been obtained and whether any application with regard to the location / creation of the site is still pending with the Pollution Control Boards and what is the status of the application submitted by the local authority/municipality."
On the next date of hearing the Principal Secretaries, Urban Administration Development Department of all the three States shall remain present personally, as well as the Member Secretaries of all the three Pollution Control Boards alongwith the concerned Zonal Officers of the Central Pollution Control Board. The replies and the information which have been sought hereinabove shall be filed by 30.01.2014, positively.
The Registrar is directed to send copy of this order to the Chief Secretaries of Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh & Madhya Pradesh States as well as the Member Secretaries, State Pollution Control Boards of Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh & Madhya Pradesh States and the Zonal Officers of the Central Pollution Control Board in these three States for compliance of the above directions."
2. The matter was again take up on 04.02.2014 and the Tribunal after hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties observed as follows :-
"The Learned Counsels appeared on behalf of the MP Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh and submitted their detailed response duly listing the status of implementation of Municipal Solid Waste (Handling & Management) Rules, 2000 (for short MSW Rules) in the Municipal bodies in the State. We have also heard the Learned Counsels for the State of Rajasthan and Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) as well as the Learned Counsels for the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board (CECB) and State of Chhattisgarh on implementation of MSW Rules in their States. Misc. Application No. 58/2014 has been filed on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh for seeking time to submit their response and detailed information on the matter in question. Accordingly, the Misc. Application No. 58/2014 is allowed and stands disposed of. The State of Chhattisgarh is allowed four weeks time for filing their detailed 6 response as per earlier direction.
Shri S.N. Mishra, Principal Secretary, Urban Administration Development Department (UADD), State of Madhya Pradesh submitted that detailed proposals are being submitted to the State Cabinet, Govt. of MP for consideration on the issues which have been discussed and noticed in the earlier orders for implementation of the MSW Rules based on the information which has been submitted to this Tribunal and as soon as a decision is taken, the same shall be conveyed to this Tribunal.
Shri D.B. Gupta, Principal Secretary, UADD, State of Rajasthan as well as Dr. D.N. Pandey, Member Secretary, RSPCB have also indicated the detailed steps which they intend to take in the coming months for implementation of the MSW Rules in the State of Rajasthan and it was submitted that priority is being given by the Administration on the need of strict implementation of the MSW Rules. They have furnished the list of Municipal bodies indicating the existing position of implementation of MSW Rules.
Shri M.K. Raut, Principal Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh submitted that MSW Rules, 2000 are being satisfactorily implemented in about 47 Municipalities in the State through PPP mode and this model is sought to be gradually extended to other municipalities wherever such method is found viable. Details of the same shall be submitted in the next report which is to be submitted by the State of Chhattisgarh.
On behalf of the Central Pollution Control Board (CECB) it was submitted that the points which have been raised and discussed today and issues raised by the State Pollution Control Boards and the Principal Secretaries of the Urban Administration Development Department of all the 3 aforesaid States in so far as the implementation of the MSW Rules, 2000 are concerned the same will be summarized for examining and giving necessary guidelines to the State PCBs and State Governments. A meeting is being called by the CPCB with the Chairpersons and Member Secretaries of all the State Pollution Control Boards during the last week of this month to discuss various agenda including the issues relating to MSW Rules, 2000 and draft MSW Rules, 2013 which are under consideration by the MoEF for amending the existing rules. It 7 was submitted that this is an annual conference where inter alia, issues relating to MSW Rules and Bio Medical Waste Rules are also discussed. In this connection we emphasise the need in this behalf to have representatives of the State Urban Administration Development to participate atleast in the session involving discussion on MSW Rules & Bio Medical Waste Rule to point out the difficulties which they face while implementating the above rules and also to take note of various steps which different States have brought into force for effective implementation of the MSW Rules even to the extent of bringing issues on new R&D and improved technology for this purpose.
From the side of the Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal it was stated that in principle a decision has been taken for closure of the existing landfill site at Bhanpura Khanti in Bhopal municipal area. It was also submitted that the proposals for alternate site are in finalization stage. It was further submitted that the proposals will be finalized within six months.
For seeking response of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as action taken by all the three States based upon the discussions and submissions made today, the matter be listed on 14.03.2014."
3. After calling a report from the State of Madhya Pradesh, State of Rajasthan & State of Chhattisgarh the matter was taken up again on 08.05.2014 and it was observed that -
"The issue which has been raised in this petition pertains to the disposal of municipal solid waste as well as non-compliance of the Municipal Solid Waste(Management & Handing) Rules, 2000 (in short referred to as MSW Rules) framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 more particularly the issue highlighted was in respect of landfill site at Bhanpur in Bhopal for which it was alleged that the aforesaid site is being utilised by the Bhopal Municipal Corporation in total disregard and violation of the provisions of the MSW Rules and in particular without there being permission accorded for the same by the State Pollution Control Board. As also, the fact that, in fact, the application was submitted for a 8 separate site but the Bhopal Municipal Corporation is using the present site at Bhanpur dehors the provisions of the MSW Rules and without permission for the same. It has been alleged that as a result of non-observance of the Rules and the site being used without permission for dumping of municipal solid waste without segregation of either biodegradable or non-biodegradable hazard waste even bio-medical waste the site and the area around it has become not only filthy but an environment hazard for the people living around it and also it is resulting in smoke emissions as such waste seems burnt and continues fire rage unabated with emissions of heavy smoke as would be evident from some of the photographs submitted by the Applicant.
It is further stated that the situation at Bhanpur is so bad that it is virtually impossible even for the trucks to enter the same and often the material is being unloaded without being taken to the designated site. It has also been alleged that as a result of municipal solid waste the underground water has also become contaminated and has become unfit for human use and consumption.
This Tribunal after having issued notices, enlarged the scope of the application to get the response from the State of Madhya Pradesh with regard to selection of such landfill sites in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh as well as from the two other States of Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh falling within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at the Central Zone Bench at Bhopal. The notices were issued to the States of Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh as it was felt that despite the MSW Rules having been brought into force by the publication in the official gazette in October, 2000 with the stipulated schedule programme under the provisions of the Rules this is for their implementation under Schedule-I, there was very little knowledge and awareness of the MSW Rules even with the authorities who were required to comply with the same and ensure their implementation.
In response to the notices issued, officers from all the three States have appeared and information with regard to the implementation of the Rules in their 9 respective states, has been furnished by all the three States. Under the MSW Rules more particularly under Rules (4), (5) & (6), it is the responsibility of every municipality to ensure the implementation of the provisions of these Rules and take up infrastructure development as well as making provision for collection, storage, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste.
The aforesaid task mentioned in Rule (4) has to be done and carried out by making a formal application for operation of a facility for the aforesaid purpose in Form No. I for getting an authorization for setting up the said waste processing and disposal facility including landfill sites from the State Pollution Control Board. The implementation is required to be carried out in accordance with the parameters and criteria laid-down in Schedule-II of the MSW Rules by the Municipalities.
The Municipal Authorities are also required to comply with Schedule I requirements for the implementation of MSW Rules which inter alia provided that waste processing and disposal facilities be set up by 31st December, 2003 or earlier. It was also provided that existing landfill sites were to be improved and brought in consonance with the provisions of these Rules by 31st December, 2001.
The information that has been provided by all the three States shows that in each of the States the position on ground is far from what is required under the Schedule I to the MWS Rules though the rules having been brought in force in the year 2000 and compliance was to have been achieved by December 2003 but could not be achieved in any of the three States, though more than ten years have since elapsed and there appears to be no urgency either with the State Governments or the Central Government to ensure their compliance.
Though the above task was entrusted to the Municipal Authorities yet the responsibility of the Municipalities did not end there and the Municipal Authorities were required to furnish Annual Reports in Form No. II appended to the MSW Rules to the Secretary-
10in-Charge, Department of Urban Development of the State to the District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner concerned as provided under the sub-rule 4 of Rule 4. This information was required to be furnished in Form No. 2 appended to the Rules.
A perusal of Form No. II appended to the MSW Rules goes to show that each Municipality was required to give total details regarding quantity of waste generated per day, the total quantity of waste collected per day and the total quantity of waste processed including composting vermiculture pelletization and by any other means. Likewise, they were also required to furnish the information regarding quantity of waste disposed by landfill site, number of landfill sites used, and also with regard to the facilities available at the landfill sites and whether weigh bridge facilities are available whether the area is fenced, whether lighting facilities were provided at the sites etc. A perusal of the MSW Rules requiring the furnishing of such information to the Secretary to the Government, Deptt. Of Urban Development / District Collector / Deputy Commissioner necessarily entailed that it required the said authority to go through the said information provided in Form No. II and wherever the Municipalities were found wanting or non-compliant or lacking the infrastructure the State Government or the authorities concerned had to intervene by providing necessary assistant or guidance as the case may be.
However, during the course of hearing, it was found that unfortunately such information as was required by sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 to be furnished by concerned Municipality to the Secretary/District Collector/Deputy Commissioner was not at all being complied with and the information was not being furnished in accordance with the provisions of the Rules in the Form No. II. When such information was not at all being furnished by the Municipalities, the issue of the same being dealt with at the level of the State Government or the District Administration also did not arise and no effort was made to call for the above information from all Municipalities. The aforesaid aspect, therefore, remained in total neglect.
11It is only because of public spirited persons like the Applicant that such issues are highlighted and brought before this Tribunal.
The issue with regard to disposal of municipal solid waste its proper handling in accordance with the Rules is of utmost concern to every citizen and is a part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of the right to clear environment as has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratlam Municipal Corporation and B.L. Wadhera Vs. Union of India 1996 SCC (2) 594 to name a few. We, therefore feel it necessary that all the Municipal Corporations and Municipalities within the States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, if they had not submitted Form No. II as required by sub-rule (4) of MSW Rule 4 shall within 30 days of the communication of this order by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development of the respective States to the District Collector, submit the aforesaid information to the State Government/Deputy Commissioner. On receipt of the aforesaid information in Form No. II from the Municipalities concerned, the concerned authority shall immediately proceed to deal with the same as required by Rule 5 and 6 of the MSW Rules and ensure compliance of the rules.
We also noticed that under Rule 8 of the MSW Rules, the State Pollution Control Boards were required to prepare and submit an Annul Report by 15th September of ever year to the Central Pollution Control Board with regard to the implementation of these Rules and the Central Pollution Control Board is required to prepare and consolidate the Annual Review Report on the management of municipal solid waste and forward the same to the Central Government along with its recommendations by 15th of December every year. Whether such reports were being sent to the Central Pollution Control Board and what would be the quality of such reports when the information was totally lacking in the Form No. II to be furnished by the Municipalities and the Municipalities not even being aware and not having the resources for complying with the MSW Rules the sending of these report under Rule 8 by the State appears to be only a formality. During the course 12 of hearing, it was pointed out that for the effective implementation and compliance of these Rules, the Municipalities of the States majority of them being only small Municipalities, did not have the kind of resources required for implementation of the provisions of the MSW Rules which required as provided under Schedule II and III sufficient funds and resources have to be made available to the Municipalities to ensure compliance. Some of the States like Madhya Pradesh submitted that they had drawn up a plan and sought assistance from the Centre by submitting proposal to the Finance Commission to the extent of rupees 3600 crores for the foresaid purpose. This is just an example to illustrate the amount sought and required by the States such as Madhya Pradesh which has 360 Municipalities in the State in the State for effective implementation of the Rules. It was pointed out that such resources are not available with the local municipalities and even with the State Government and assisting the Municipalities to this extent is not possible by the State Govt. The position of other States is no different financially. During the course of hearing, it was also submitted that most of the Municipalities have hardly any revenue resources of their own or whatever little source are available by way of collection of minor taxes are not even sufficient for payment of salary of staff. In such a situation, the full implementation of the MSW Rules which has not yet been achieved, is not a surprise. The Deputy Director (Hazard Substances Management), MoEF also submitted that so far as the Ministry of MoEF is concerned it is only concerned with regard to the taking of the information furnished by the State Pollution Control Boards through the Central Pollution Control Board with regard to the implementation of the Rules and making its recommendations to the Central Government. However, so far as any assistance etc. which may be required for the implementation of the Rules is something for the Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India and Finance Ministry and the Finance Commission to provide for.
Looking to the facts and circumstances which have been brought on record, some of the points which stand out are that despite more than 10 years having been 13 elapsed for implementation of the MSW Rules as the scheduled period/last date of setting up of waste processing and disposal facilities expired in December, 2003, the MSW Rules have not been implemented in the States as required by law with the kind of resources available with them and the helplessness of the States expressed by them we do not find that the MSW Rules can be fully implemented if such directions are issued to the State Government for their implementation. However, from the replies and the information furnished by the various States it is clear that efforts are being made now as the issue has been highlighted through the Applicant by bringing the matter to the notice of the Tribunal and the notices having been issued to all the three States that selection and preparation of landfill sites in the major Municipalities in the State has been taken up.
We find that the present system itself may not be sufficient to deal with the issue of management and handling of municipal solid waste as at present it is only being dealt with on the question of incurring of expenditure. During the course of hearing, it was also brought to our notice that various technologies are available and reference of the same can also be found under Sl. No. 5 of Schedule II where while requiring processing of municipal solid waste it was suggested to the Municipal Authorities to adopt suitable technology to make use the municipal solid waste and minimise the burden on the landfill. This is something which is required to be taken up on an urgent basis by all the concerned authorities. Moreover, by adopting the technologies available what is at present an expenditure incurring problem can be connected to as a resource generating asset.
The Government of India though have been provided for such measures to be adopted by the Municipal Authorities, yet it would require much more by way of assistance in the form of information as well as knowhow with regard to technology and seek assistance from the agencies which deal with such technology or who have developed the same for the said purpose and furnish this information to the State and take steps to encourage the 14 same. The State Governments shall necessarily seek necessary assistance from the Government of India or directly from such agencies by contacting them and take effective measures for brining to the use of such technology for processing of municipal solid waste to their advantage and the benefit of the people rather than keeping the issue only as an expenditure incurring issue and making it pollute the environment when not being treated in the desired manner.
While granting the time to the Municipalities to submit the required information in Form No. II to the District Administration within 30 days, we also direct the State Governments to create cells for obtaining necessary knowhow with regard to the available technology for the beneficial use for processing the municipal solid waste and taking advantage of the same. The officer as well as the counsel from the State of Chhattisgarh pointed out that in Chhattisgarh they had successfully adopted the PPP Model for dealing with the problem with regard to municipal solid waste disposal and the same is working successfully in some of the municipal areas where it has been utilised. The need, therefore, is of finding solutions by the State Government in consultation with the Central Government and technical experts for developing such technology and finding solutions which are practical.
We also find from the Schedule I to the Rules that the authorities are also required to "to carry out identification of landfill sites for use and making sites ready for operations". This would necessarily entail the exercise for anticipation of the projected population growth in each municipal area on a future cut-off date with also the projected increase of municipal solid waste generated in such municipal area during such period. The municipal solid waste should also to be categorised not only into biodegradable and non-biodegradable categories but also into solid municipal waste as well as liquefied municipal waste and orders would also to be issued with regard to disposal of plastic waste, e-waste as well as hazardous waste and therefore each shall have to be dealt with separately as required under the respective rules. The need therefore is also to create awareness with regard to 15 the handling of such waste and the segregation of the same at the source of generation i.e. at the household level or at the other points of its generation. Massive drive would therefore have to be carried out for creating awareness and also providing assistance for separate collection of each type of waste which is generated both at the domestic level, at commercial sites industrial level and at institutional levels wherever such waste is generated. Without creating effective awareness and without ensuring the participation of the people at large in the aforesaid task, it would not be possible merely for the authorities to carry out the implementation of the aforesaid Rules. Needless to say that for infrastructure and development finances shall have to be provided. How this can be achieved is something we would expect from each of the State Governments and they should to come forward and submit their proposals in turn to the Central Government. It is unfortunate that after framing of the rules no effective monitoring has been carried out. We expect respective States to carry out the aforesaid task of identifying the issues based upon the information supplied by the respective Municipalities and also by conducting workshops at different levels for finding solutions to the aforesaid problems. The State Pollution Control Boards shall also provide necessary assistance to the State Governments in this behalf and joint ventures of holding workshops in consultation with the experts in the field both in private sector or Government or Public Sector, can also be taken up by the States.
An affidavit has been filed by Shri Virender Singh, Senior Project Officer, Project Evaluation Office, Planning Commission, Govt. of India. In Para 6, it has been submitted that role of the Planning Commission is to recommend policies, strategies and schemes in various sectors including urban sector in Five Year Plans and in accordance with such recommendations, it facilitates programme implementation like JNNURM in consultation with various Central Ministries and based on availability of funds as well as absorption capacity of the schemes and also guided by the outlay for the concerned scheme allocates annual budget to the Ministries. It has further 16 been submitted that there is no direct involvement with regard to the implementation of the programmes and schemes by the Planning Commission. In the affidavit it has also been stated that urban services pertaining to municipal solid waste management are State Subject but the Govt. of India launched JNNURM in 2005 with an outlay of Rs.66,085 crores with the objective of assisting the States to improve delivery of urban services in cities and to undertake urban reforms. Learned counsel for the Planning Commission submitted that in accordance with the schemes and plan submitted by the respective States, the Planning Commission on consideration of the same and evaluation of the each new scheme makes allocation in the plan by way of consolidate outlays.
In view of the above, this Tribunal directs the counsel to submit information of the aforesaid three States whether any allocation from the Planning Commission was sought for implementation of the MSW Rules and any scheme submitted to the Planning Commission as well as amount sought by each State for the same. In case such scheme was submitted, the response of the Planning Commission on the said amount so desired by each State for the implementation of MSW Rules and the amount so allocated by the Planning Commission in the consolidated amount sanctioned to each State, may be furnished. The aforesaid information be filed by the Planning Commission in the form of an affidavit and each State shall also file their respective affidavits giving the above information along with the manner in which and the project for which these amounts were utilised."
4. The matter was again taken up on 10.05.2016 and it was observed that -
"Today Shri Sanjay Pandey, Learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the Quality Council of India which is an agency reportedly created by the Govt. of India for carrying out the survey of various cities in the country on the issue of identifying cities to be chosen for being developed as smart cities. He however, submits that he is not aware about any central observer having visited Bhopal as recorded in our order dtd. 11.12.2015 which was based upon media reports. He further submits that a 17 team from Quality Council of India which was assigned the task only visited Bhopal in the second week of January, 2016. Be that as it may, Shri Sanjay Pandey, Learned Counsel submits that he may be allowed some more time to file his report which was submitted in reference to Bhopal after the inspection was carried out by the said team.
We are inclined to allow the aforesaid prayer made by the Learned Counsel to submit the report. However, since this Original Application strictly deals with the issue of Municipal Solid Waste, we would direct that the part of the report pertaining to the Municipal Solid Waste Management in the city of Bhopal alone needs to be filed, however, copy of the detailed reports be kept ready. The Tribunal on the earlier occasions had also directed both the BMC as well as the Government for intimating remedial steps that had been taken after the report with regard to the quality of the sample water testing in various locations at different radius from the Bhanpura site of the Municipal Solid Waste disposal site had been received in which several parameters and more prominently total alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, total dissolved solid & particularly total coliform were noticed to be on very high side seen in the tube-wells water.
Shri Vivek Choudhary, Learned Counsel appearing for the BMC submits that the letter had been written to MANIT by the BMC for the aforesaid purpose. We are constrained to observe that though the order was passed on 05.04.2016 such letter by the BMC has only been written on 06.05.2014 that is 4 days prior to the hearing and more than one month has been allowed to go by. We are not happy with the aforesaid manner in which the BMC has acted. Orders of the Tribunal need to be complied with expeditiously.
The BMC shall follow up their letters and correspondence by deputing the officer, to the MANIT or any other agency personally for seeking their advice in the matter urgently.
We may also observe and direct that once the quality of the sample testing of the water particularly underground 18 source has been conducted up to a radius of 1.5 Km. from the Bhanpura site and same has been found to be polluted and not at all fit for drinking purpose, the municipal authority must take all preventive and prohibitive action including putting up sign boards and even disconnection of electricity, if necessary, from such tube wells where the water has been found to be unfit for drinking purposes. We are informed that alternate arrangement by way of supply of water for drinking purposes including from the Narmada river has been made which is based upon the requirement and availability the authorities. Both the Local Municipality and the State PHE Department need to see that the people and residents of the area are not put to un-necessary inconvenience. Also awareness by notifying through public address system must be created by the local authority and the BMC to apprise the people living in radius of 1.5 Kms. where such test has been done so as to inform them that the water being drawn from such tube wells is not at all fit for drinking. At the same time people can also be informed to have the water drawn by them to be tested before they consume the same. The location for such testing shall also be notified and testing should be done expeditiously. Only after it is certified that the water is fit for being consumed for drinking purpose should people be allowed to consume the said water. This task should be completed within a period of two weeks. The awareness programme through media both print and electronic should be carried out expeditiously.
Our directions to the State with regard to the creation of the new site and obtaining necessary consents etc. have not been answered so far and today also Learned Counsel for the State submits that the Officer-In-charge is not present and that he has been assigned duties in the Singhasth at Ujjain. We cannot accept such explanation. The court work cannot be allowed to suffer as a result of the absence of the OIC. The Officer-In-charge is duty bound to submit his report and the information that has been sought. We expect that by the next date of hearing, the State will respond to the direction issued earlier. Let the matter be listed on 27th May, 2016."19
5. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 04.10.2016 and this Tribunal after hearing the parties observed as follows -
"Learned Counsel Shri Sachin K. Verma assisted by Shri Neelesh Dubey Governance officer in the Urban Administration and Development Department of the Government of M.P have reply today. The same is ordered to be taken on record. According to the same it is submitted that the entire State consisting of 378 ULB‟s. These have been divided into 26 clusters plus one at Jabalpur. These cluster areas consisting of different Municipalities with adjoining areas for disposal and management of the solid waste which is generated in such clusters, single site for their disposal facility would be set up.
It was submitted before us that such a facility has already been created and has become operational at Jabalpur.
It is further submitted that for Bhopal cluster at an estimated cost of 465.75 crores such facility would be created. It would take into account the closure of the existing site at Bhanpura at Bhopal as also the setting up of the new site with waste to energy project at Adampur.
According to the time schedule that was submitted before us during the course of hearing it is submitted that for the closure of the Bhanpura site the following time schedule has been worked out.
1. Approval of bid document by MIC by 05.10.2016.
2. Floating of the bid by 10.10.2016
3. Last date of submission by 31.12.2016
4. Bid evaluation by 15.01.2017
5. Opening of financial bid by 31.01.2017
6. Selection of concessionaire by 15.02.2017
7. Handing over of the site for closure to the concessionaire after the waste from the city would start to be transported on new Adampur Chhanoni Site between July to October 2017.
As per the affidavit the State Government, after deliberations and evaluating closure plans for Bhanpura, 20 has decided upon:
(a) Closure with land recovery of the Bhanpura site.
(b) Closure with land and land fill gas recovery.
(c) Closure with land fill mining and land recovery.
The impact assessment of the aforesaid scientific closures methods has also assessed.
While taking on record the aforesaid information provided by the Learned Counsel along with the concerned officer from the Urban Development Department we Direct that the State shall provide a performance guarantee for an amount of Rs. 4.6 crores being one per cent of the estimated cost for ensuring the work schedule for completion of the aforesaid task is adhered to in the best interest of the people of Bhopal.
We have further been informed that steps are already underway and concessionaire to be appointed for the waste to energy disposal mechanism at the new site at Adampur for the Bhopal is at final stages. We express the hope that the aforesaid task shall be taken up by the local authority as well as the State Government and will be completed within the timeframe that is envisaged.
In the meanwhile, as ordered earlier precautionary measures regarding precautions to be taken against any fires, contamination and pollution of ground water including testing of samples at various points at different radius from the existing site at Bhanpura takes from the tube-wells and water resources shall be done regularly by both the PHE, Ground Water Department and the PCB. These monthly reports shall be submitted before this Tribunal by the State as well as the PCB by the 15th of every month commencing from 15.11.2016 till the site is closed effectively. The closure mechanism shall also incorporate the aforesaid condition with regard to the air monitoring and water monitoring. The Registry shall apprise the Bench in Chamber about any reports that are filed. With the aforesaid directions the matter is ordered to be consigned to record."
216. Again the matter was considered on 17.01.2018 and it was observed -
"In terms of our order dated 04.10.2016 the PCB has filed its first report today i.e. on 17.01.2018. It has been stated that the water samples were taken at six different sites which are the sources of ground water for different colonies. The ground water monitoring report has been enclosed as annexure 03 to 09. It has further been stated that as per the report the ground water quality at five sampling points was not found suitable for direct drinking purposes on the ground of presence of high total coliform level which is more than 1600 MPN/100 ml. As regards the status of ambient air quality it has been stated that RSPM at Bhanpur Khanti site office was found 129.78 μg/m3 which is more than the prescribed national ambient air quality standards that is 100 μg per cubic meter. The reason for higher RSPM has been attributed to the vehicular movement, heavy earth moving machinery movement, solid waste loading and unloading activities which were being continuously performed at Bhanpur Khanti site. It has been submitted the samples were taken in the month of December when the site was in operation, however, now the dumping at the present site has been closed. On the basis of the above findings the following recommendations have been made :-
1. The ground water sources all around the Bhanpur Khanti are not safe for direct drinking purpose due to presence of total Coliform Bacteria which is unacceptable. So use of these sources as drinking water shall be prohibited. Ground water of this area could be used only after proper disinfection prior to use.
2. Suitable water sprinkling facilities shall be provided for suppression of dust generated on vehicular movement, heavy earth moving machineries movement inside the Bhanpur Khanti premises.22
We direct that while filing the next report the PM 2.5 level will also be monitored and the action taken based on the above recommendations will also be stated in the report.
Learned Counsel for the state has submitted that as our order dated 04.10.2016 was not uploaded because of which they were not aware that they had to file report by every month commencing from 15.11.2016 till the site was closed effectively. This reason is not acceptable. He has submitted that the first report of the State will be filed within next ten days. The reasons for higher Coliform level, higher RSPM level and other parameter may be studied and effective measures be taken for controlling such pollution. The action taken in this regard will also be reported while filing report of the State."
7. Action taken report by the Central Pollution Control Board, State of Rajasthan, State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh have been submitted which was considered by the Tribunal, reply of the responded has also been filed. Compliance report by State of Madhya Pradesh was filed on 05.02.2020 which is as follows -
"1. As per the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal, a team from MPPCB inspected the Bhanpur Dumping site and collected samples on 02.07.2019 and, 16.07-2019- The copy of the inspection report has been enclosed.
2. The ground water samples were collected by the team at the earlier identified six points located at a distance of nearly 500 meters from the MSW site at Bhanpur.
3. The copy of the Ground water Monitoring Report (for July 2019) has been enclosed. It is to be noted that, the water quality is found to be not suitable for direct drinking purposes as per IS 10500:2012.
4. The answering respondents also carried out the Ambient Air Quality monitoring at Bhanpur Khanti. The copy of the Ambient Air quality monitoring report has been enclosed. The RSPM levels are found to be marginally exceeding the prescribed limit at two out of thee points.23
5. The copy of the inspection report dated 0l.08.2019 has been enclosed.
6. The copy of the Ground Water Monitoring Report (for August 2019) has been enclosed. The water quality is found to be not suitable for the direct drinking purpose as per IS 10500:2012.
7. The Ambient Air Quality monitoring could not be carried out in the month of August due to heavy rains in the city.
8. As per the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal, a team from MPPCB inspected the Bhanpur Dumping site and collected samples on 06.09.2019. The copy of the inspection report has been enclosed.
9. The copy of the Ground water Monitoring Report (for September 2019) has been enclosed. The water quality is found to be not suitable for the direct drinking purpose as per IS 10500:2012.
10. The Ambient Air Quality monitoring could not be carried out in the month of August due to heavy rains in the city.
11. As per the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal, a team from MPPCB inspected the Bhanpur Dumping site and collected samples on 03.10.2019 and 04.10.2019. The copy of the inspection report has been enclosed.
12. The copy of the Ground Water Monitoring Report (for October 2019) has been enclosed. It is to be noted that the water quality is found to be not suitable for direct drinking purposes as per IS10500:2012.
13. The answering respondents also carried out the Ambient Air Quality monitoring at Bhanpur Khanti. The copy of the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Report has been enclosed. The RSPM levels are found to be within the prescribed limit at all three points.
14. The copy of the inspection report dated l5.11.2019 has been enclosed.
15. The copy of the Ground Water Monitoring Report (for November 2019) has been enclosed. The water quality is found to be not suitable for the direct drinking purpose as per IS 10500:2012.24
16. The answering respondents also carried out the Ambient Air Quality monitoring at Bhanpur Khanti. The copy of the Ambient Air Quality monitoring report has been enclosed. The RSPM levels are found to be marginally exceeding the prescribed limit at one out of three points.
17. As per the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal, a team from MPPCB inspected the Bhanpur Dumping site and collected samples on 26.12.2019. The copy of the inspection report has been enclosed.
18. The copy of the Ground Water Monitoring Report (for December 2019) has been enclosed. The water quality is found to be not suitable for the direct drinking purpose as per IS 10500:2012.
19. The answering respondents also carried out the Ambient Air Quality monitoring at Bhanpur Khanti. The copy of the Ambient Air Quality monitoring report has been enclosed. The RSPM levels are found to be marginally exceeding the prescribed limit at two out of three points.
20. The Bio-remediation work has been in increasing trend in the past six months. 85-90% of work has been completed."
8. Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board has submitted inspection report with regard to air quality which is as follows -
"In compliance to the directions of the Hon'ble NGT the undersign with a monitoring team visited Bhanpur Khanti site, Bhopal on 02.07.2019 & 16.07.2019. In continuation to previous visits ground water sampling at same 06 Bore well/Hand pump sited situated all around the dumping site & AAQ Monitoring at same 03 stations were carried out. Following observations were made during inspection-
1. There is no fresh city solid waste dumping at this site.
2. M/s Saurashtra Enviro Projects Pvt Ltd. is carrying out Bio-Remediation & Scientific closure of Bhanpur Khanti dump site. Till inspection date 55% of the project work had been completed as reported by company site representative.25
3. Ground water sampling at 06 Bore well/Hand pump sites situated all around the dumping site were carried out. Details of sampling points (Bore well/Hand Pump Location) is as under-
a. Ram Bharose lodhi House, Ratan Nagar, Raslakhedi, Vidisha Road, Bhopal.
b. Bane Singh House, KhejdaBaramad, Bhopal. c. Halku Singh House, KhejdaBaramad, Bhopal.
d. M/s Shining Bios & Herbs LLP Office, Mahaoli, Bhopal e. Hand Pump in front of Narmada Prasad Narwariya House, Bhanpur, Bhopal f. Kapil Gour House, in front of Sanjeevani Clinic, Vidisha Road, Bhanpur, Bhopal
4. Ambient Air Quality monitoring was carried out around Bhanpur Khanti site at following 03 locations in habitation areas -
Village Maholi - South East direction dumping site. Village Khejda Baramad - East direction dumping site. Village Bhanpur - South direction dumping site.
Status of Ground Water Quality around Bhanpur Khanti:-
The ground water monitoring report is enclosed. As per reports the ground water quality at all 06 sampling points is found not suitable for direct drinking purpose.
Ground water is found objectionable for drinking, on ground of following parameters as per drinking water standards is 10500.2012 which exceed permissible limits in absence of alternate source.
Sampling A B C D E F
Point
Parameter Total Total Total Total Total Total
Coliform Coliform Coliform Coliform, Coliform, Coliform,
Total Total Total
Hardness Hardness Hardness
Status of Ambient Air Quality at Bhanour Khanti:-
The Ambient Air Quality around the Bhanpur Khanti is found as follows-
S.No Details of AAQ PMl0 PM2.5 Standard
Monitoring station (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
1 Maholi 108.50 46.50 PM 10_100
PM 2.5_60
2 Khejda Baramad 88.90 44.90
3 Bhanpur 132.40 57.40
26
Analysis report is enclosed. The above result reveals that the concentration of pollutant PM10 is higher that the prescribed National Ambient Air Quality Standard at monitoring station number 1 & 3 falls in moderate air quality category. All other pollutants concentration was found within prescribed standards."
Scientific closure should carefully be completed to give environmentally sustainable results.
9. After the enforcement of New Solid Waste Management Rule, 2016 the matter was taken up of Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Original Application No 606 of 2018 and after taking the report from the State (PAN India Level) the Tribunal observed as follows -
"1. The Tribunal has been considering the issue of non- compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and other important environmental issues for protection of public health and the environment in this matter. The issues of solid as well as liquid waste management are being monitored as per orders of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 888/1996, Almitra H. Patel vs. Union of India & Ors., (with regard to solid waste management) and order reported in (2017) 5 SCC 326, Paryavaran Suraksha vs. Union of India relating to liquid waste management. Other related issues include pollution of 351 river stretches, 122 non attainment cities in terms of air quality, 100 polluted industrial clusters, illegal sand mining etc.
2. After considering earlier orders and proceedings before this Tribunal, and in view of chronic non-compliances for a long period, on 16.01.2019, the Tribunal held that it will be necessary to require the personal presence of Chief Secretaries of all States and UTs in view of continuing non- compliance of the solid and liquid waste management rules adversely affecting the environment and public health. Needless to say that such large scale non compliance of environmental law is resulting in deaths and diseases and irreversible damage to the environment without punishment and accountability for such non-compliance. Violation of the Rules as well as orders of this Tribunal being by itself criminal offence under the law of land, non compliance is to be viewed sternly to enforce rule of law. No State authority can be on the 27 wrong side of law and still continue to hold public office.
3. Accordingly, the Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs appeared on the scheduled dates till 18.07.2019 and the Tribunal, after reviewing the status of noncompliance on most of the issues, directed further effective steps to be taken for compliance of the Rules and the environmental norms. The directions include setting up of environmental cells directly under the Chief Secretaries, regular periodical monitoring by the Chief Secretaries at the State level and by the District Magistrates at the District level and making atleast some cities, towns and villages compliant in the first instance and thereafter making the entire State compliant. Direction is to take action for non-compliance by recovery of compensation or otherwise. The Tribunal also directed filing of quarterly reports by the Chief Secretaries. Based on such reports, CPCB was to file consolidated status reports. The Chief Secretaries were to appear after six months with updated status of compliance.
4. The matter was reviewed on 12.09.2019 in the light of reports of the CPCB dated 09.09.2019 showing wide gaps in compliance of solid waste, plastic waste, bio-medical waste management, rejuvenation of identified polluted river stretches, polluted industrial clusters and non- attainment cities. A fresh schedule for appearance of the Chief Secretaries was issued. Accordingly, the Chief Secretaries of 18 States/UTs1 appeared and filed updated status reports and since there still existed huge gaps in compliance, further directions were issued by way of different orders. Last such order is of 28.2.2020. Other orders are on same pattern. The direction part of the said order is reproduced below:
"41. In view of above, consistent with the directions referred to in Para 29 issued on 10.01.2020 in the case of UP, Punjab and Chandigarh which have also 1 States/UTs Appeared on Next date UP, Punjab & Chandigarh 10.01.2020 24.08.2020 West Bengal 17.01.2020 04.09.2020 Maharashtra 24.01.2020 11.09.2020 Rajasthan and Andaman & Nicobar 31.01.2020 18.09.2020 Telangana 14.02.2020 25.09.2020 Karnataka 20.02.2020 01.10.2020 J&K and Sikkim 24.02.2020 07.10.2020 Madhya Pradesh 25.02.2020 14.10.2020 Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, 28.02.2020 03.11.2020 Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura and Meghalaya 28 been repeated for other States in matters already dealt with, we direct:
a. In view of the fact that most of the statutory timelines have expired and directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal to comply with Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 remain unexecuted, interim compensation scale is hereby laid down for continued failure after 31.03.2020. The compliance of the Rules requires taking of several steps mentioned in Rule 22 from Serial No. 1 to 10 (mentioned in para 12 above). Any such continued failure will result in liability of every Local Body to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per month per Local Body for population of above 10 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakh per month per Local Body for population between 5 lakhs and 10 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh per month per other Local Body from 01.04.2020 till compliance. If the Local Bodies are unable to bear financial burden, the liability will be of the State Governments with liberty to take remedial action against the erring Local Bodies. Apart from compensation, adverse entries must be made in the ACRs of the CEO of the said Local Bodies and other senior functionaries in Department of Urban Development etc. who are responsible for compliance of order of this Tribunal. Final compensation may be assessed and recovered by the State PCBs/PCCs in the light of Para 33 above within six months from today.
CPCB may prepare a template and issue an appropriate direction to the State PCBs/PCCs for undertaking such an assessment in the light thereof within one month.
b. Legacy waste remediation was to „commence‟ from 01.11.2019 in terms of order of this Tribunal dated 17.07.2019 in O.A. No. 519/2019 para 282 even though statutory timeline for 2 The Chief Secretaries may ensure allocation of funds for processing of legacy waste and its disposal and in their respective next reports, give the progress relating to management of all the legacy waste dumpsites. Remediation work on all other dumpsites may commence from 01.11.2019 and completed preferably within six months and in no case beyond one year. Substantial progress be made within six months. We are conscious that the SWM Rules provide for a maximum period of upto five years for the purpose, however there is no reason why the same should not happen earlier, in view of serious implications on the environmentand public health.29
„completing‟ the said step is till 07.04.2021 (as per serial no. 11 in Rule 22), which direction remains unexecuted at most of the places and delay in clearing legacy waste is causing huge damage to environment in monetary terms as noted in para 33 above, pending assessment and recovery of such damage by the concerned State PCB within four months from today, continued failure of every Local Body on the subject of commencing the work of legacy waste sites remediation from 01.04.2020 till compliance will result in liability to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.
10 lakh per month per Local Body for population of above 10 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakh per month per Local Body for population between 5 lakhs and 10 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh per month per other Local Body. If the Local Bodies are unable to bear financial burden, the liability will be of the State Governments with liberty to take remedial action against the erring Local Bodies. Apart from compensation, adverse entries must be made in the ACRs of the CEO of the said Local Bodies and other senior functionaries in Department of Urban Development etc. who are responsible for compliance of order of this Tribunal. Final compensation may be assessed and recovered by the State PCBs/PCCs in the light of Para 33 above within six months from today.
c. Further, with regard to thematic areas listed above in para 20, steps be ensured by the Chief Secretaries in terms of directions of this Tribunal especially w.r.t.
plastic waste, bio-medical waste, construction and demolition waste which are linked with solid waste treatment and disposal. Action may also be ensured by the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs with respect to remaining thematic areas viz. hazardous waste, e- waste, polluted industrial clusters, reuse of treated water, performance of CETPs/ETPs, groundwater extraction, groundwater recharge, 30 restoration of water bodies, noise pollution and illegal sand mining.
d. The compensation regime already laid down for failure of the Local Bodies and/or Department of Irrigation and Public Health/In-charge Department to take action for treatment of sewage in terms of observations in Para 36 above will result in liability to pay compensation as already noted above which are reproduced for ready reference:
i. Interim measures for phytoremediation/bioremediatin etc. in respect of 100% sewage to reduce the pollution load on recipient water bodies-
31.03.2020. Compensation is payable for failure to do so at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per drain by concerned Local Bodies/States (in terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018) w.e.f.
01.04.2020.
ii. Commencement of setting up of STPs - 31.03.2020.
Compensation is payable for failure to do so at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per STP by concerned Local Bodies/States (in terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018) w.e.f.
01.04.2020.
iii. Commissioning of STPs
-31.03.2021. Compensation is payable for failure to do so at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per month per STP by concerned Local Bodies/States (in terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018) w.e.f. 01.04.2021.
e. Compensation in above terms may be deposited with the CPCB for being spent on restoration of environment which may be ensured by the Chief Secretaries‟ of the States/UTs.
f. An „Environment Monitoring Cell‟ may be set up in the office of Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs within one month from today, if not already done for coordination and 31 compliance of above directions which will be the responsibility of the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs.
g. Compliance reports in respect of significant environmental issues may be furnished in terms of order dated 07.01.2020 quarterly with a copy to CPCB."
10. In terms of order dated 18.10.2019, the Tribunal requested Niti Ayog to standardize technologies and costs. Operative part of the said order is as follows:
"There is need to standardize necessary technologies with cost breakups for operation and maintenance, including procurement. Besides this, the service provides need to be identified and empaneled. This exercise may also require the concerned authority to explore business models". It had also stated in paragraph 2 that -"development of business models for privatization of (a) sewage collection, treatment and disposal, including utilization of treated water and sludge; (b) remediation of legacy waste dumpsites; and (c) other such activities relating to collection, treatment and processing and utilization of wastes and provision of services such as setting up of rainwater harvesting system may have to be considered."
11. The Tribunal, vide order dated 02.07.2020, noted the report of Niti Ayog dated 25.06.2020 as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx The Committee held three meetings: on 19.11.2019, 20.11.2019 and 17.03.2020. Pursuant to the decisions taken during these meetings, NITI Aayog has formulated the Model Concession Agreements (MCAs) and Model Request for Proposals documents (RFPs) for Integrated Solid Waste Management (including Bio- Remediation of Legacy Waste) and Integrated Liquid Waste Management (including Faecal Sludge Management) on Hybrid Annuity Model (HAM) of Public-Private Partnership (PPP).
MoHUA has provided Engineering Procurement Construction (EPC) Contract for Legacy Waste Dumpsite Remediation and several other documents relating to legacy waste dumpsite remediation and integrated solid waste management activities such as collection, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste.
NMCG has also provided documents for setting up of sewage treatment plants and other guiding documents for improved liquid waste management in the country.
32Now the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) have the following options for solid waste management and liquid waste management under PPP:
For Solid Waste Management:
(i) To undertake only legacy waste remediation: existing method of tendering EPC contract which is entirely financed by the government be taken up (it is a successful model as indicated by MoHUA).
(ii) To undertake only solid waste management system collection transportation processing & disposal) (Non- HAM): the existing method of tendering Design, Build, Finance, Operate & Transfer (DBFOT) contracts which is either not funded or only partly funded by the government be taken up. The drafts of such agreements, model RFP, list of necessary clauses of such agreements, and guidelines for drafting of concession agreements have been made available through Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban), MoHUA, and the World Bank.
(iii) To undertake both legacy waste remediation as well as solid waste management system: the MCA of NITI Aayog under HAM may be taken up.
(iv) To undertake only solid waste management system (collection, transportation, processing & disposal) only the parts of the NITI Aayog MCA pertaining to Bio-
Remediation of Legacy Waste may accordingly be removed by the ULB and remaining agreement may be taken up.
For Liquid Waste Management:
(i) To undertake only sewage treatment (Non-HAM):
existing method of tendering EPC contract or DBFOT contract for setting up sewage treatment plants under state or central government funding schemes, may be taken up.
(ii) To undertake only sewage treatment (under HAM):
model bidding documents prepared by NMCG may be taken up.
(iii) To undertake both sewage treatment as well as faecal sludge management system: the MCA of NIT1 Aayog under HAM may be taken up.
As per paragraph 5 of the NGT Order, the Tribunal was of the opinion that placing these documents on the GeM Portal would go a long way in tackling the situation by curtailing procedural delay. In accordance with the requirement of the NGT Order, all the relevant documents were shared with the CEO, GeM Portal on 11.06.2020 to initiate the process of uploading of the documents.
I am sharing the documents with you for the kind information and reference of the Hon'ble Tribunal.
33The following documents are attached herewith:
(A) Order of the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal dated
18.10.2019 in O.A. No. 606/2018 (Main) on Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and other environmental issues.
(B) Solid Waste Management (SWM) i. Model Concession Agreement including Schedules (prepared by NITI Aayog) ii. Model RFP for Solid Waste Management (prepared by NITI Aayog) iii. EPC Contract for Legacy Waste Dumpsite Remediation iv. DPR preparation Toolkit for Dumpsite remediation v. EPC Contractors & O&M Vendors for dumpsite remediation vi. Equipment & Suppliers for dumpsite remediation vii. Template for management of Dumpsites viii. Toolkit for DPRs preparation ix. List of SWM Empanelled Agencies x. Empanelled Institutes SWM xi. Empanelled Transaction Advisers - SWM xii. Checklist for scrutiny of DPR for SWM projects xiii. Checklist for scrutiny of PPR or PHI for SWM projects (C) Liquid Waste Management (LWM)
(i) Model Concession Agreement (prepared by NITI Aayog)
(ii) Schedules to Model Concession Agreement (15 Schedules) (prepared by NITI Aayog)
(iii) Model RFP for Liquid Waste Management (prepared by NITI Aayog)
(iv) DPR Guidelines - LWM
(v) Empanelled Institutes for evaluation of DPRs - LWM
(vi) List of Transaction Advisers & Project Engineers - LWM
(vii) Model Bidding Documents for NMCG projects - STP (D) Letter addressed to the CEO, GeM Portal through which the above- mentioned documents were shared with GeM, requesting them to initiate the process of uploading.
The documents listed above have been approved by the competent authority at NITI Aayog. This submission is in compliance and fulfillment of the directions given by the Hon‟ble National Green 34 Tribunal to NITI Aayog in its Order dated 18.10.2019 in O.A. No. 606/2018 (Main)."
"8. In view of the grave situation faced by the country in the form of pandemic, but at the same time having regard to the necessity of continuous monitoring of the scientific management of waste in the interest of protection of environment and public health, we defer the appearances of the Chief Secretaries till further orders subject to the condition that the monitoring at the level of Chief Secretaries may continue, as directed earlier and quarterly compliance reports may be filed with the CPCB and CPCB may file a consolidated report every six months before this Tribunal. First such report may be filed by 30.06.2021 which may be put up for consideration on 28.07.2021."
"9. The compensation in terms of earlier order be recovered and credited to a separate account with the Environment Department of the States/UTs to be used for restoration of environment in the concerned States/UTs. The deposit, instead of being made with the CPCB, may now be made to the said account."
12. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan, State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh have submitted that the matter of the New Solid Waste Management Rule, 2016, the Bio-Medical Waste Management, Rule 2016, the Liquid Waste Management, the Hazardous Waste Management Rules, 2016 are being taken by the Principal Bench of New Delhi in Original Application No 606 of 2018 and the report with compliance are regularly submitted and considered by the Principal Bench in that Application.
13. Learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal has also submitted that in Swatchta Abhiyan, the State of Madhya Pradesh prestigious city Bhopal and Indore were given the prize and found placed at top of the list.
14. The next question which has been raised in this application is extraction of ground water and contamination of ground water.
"7. The matter has been dealt with by the Principle Bench of this Tribunal in O.A No. 685/2019 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and vide order dated 15.05.2020 :35
5. Needless to say that protection of ground water is of great significance, particularly in view of falling of ground water levels in Delhi. In O.A. No. 176 of 2015, Shailesh Singh v. Hotel Holiday Regency, Moradabad & Ors., the matter has been dealt with by this Tribunal in the last about 5 years which was last reviewed on 11.9.2019. Reference was made to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in M.C Mehta v. Union of India and Ors (1997) 11 SCC 312 whereby the Hon‟ble Supreme Court directed constitution of Central Regulatory Body in the light of the recommendation of an Expert Committee, under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act). The Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) has been constituted. The Tribunal found that effective functioning was far from satisfactory in achieving the object of protecting the ground water levels. With the result, illegal drawal of ground water by the hotels, industries and builders for commercial purposes in over exploited, critical and semi critical (OCS) areas was continuing at large scale. The Tribunal elaborately considered the problem and need for constant action by the regulatory authorities. After noticing the available data, the Tribunal noted the failure of the authorities in performing their duties on the subject on account of which situation continues to deteriorate. The Tribunal also considered and noted the report of the CPCB dated 26.06.2019 dealing with the methodology for assessment of environmental compensation for illegal extraction of ground water. It was observed:-
1. Remedial action against falling groundwater levels in the country is the subject matter of consideration before this Tribunal. Taking cognizance of news item under the caption "Falling Groundwater Level Threatens City", appearing in the Indian Express of 18.03.1996, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court issued notice to the Central Groundwater Body and DPCC, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi Waterworks and Sewerage Disposal Undertaking (now DJB).3 Suggestions were sought from NEERI and thereafter from Ministry of Water Resource. The MoWR acknowledged the problem and stated that a Model Bill has been prepared to regulate and control the development of groundwater in their respective areas."
4. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court directed:
"9. The Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forest shall constitute the Central Groundwater Board as an 3 (1997) 11 SCC 312 36 Authority under Section 3(3) of the Act. The Authority so constituted shall exercise all the powers under the Act necessary for the purpose of regulation and control of groundwater management and development.
The Central Government shall confer on the Authority the power to give directions under Section 5 of the Act and also powers to take such measures or pass any orders in respect of all the matters referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act.
10. We make it clear that the Board having been constituted an Authority under Section 3(3) of the Act, it can resort to the penal provisions contained in Sections 15 to 21 of the Act.
12. The main object for the constitution of the Board as an Authority is the urgent need for regulating the indiscriminate boring and withdrawal of underground water in the country. We have no doubt that the Authority so constituted shall apply its mind to this urgent aspect of the matter and shall issue necessary regulatory directions with a view to preserve and protect the underground water. This aspect may be taken up by the Authority on an urgent basis."
"5. Even though 23 years have passed after the passing of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the situation of falling groundwater level has not improved and has in fact further deteriorated. Unfortunately, in spite of clear directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the CGWA is not willing to take the ownership of the subject and repeatedly takes the plea that it does not have the infrastructure or that the responsibility of dealing with the problem is of the States and not that of the said authority. It is high time that the working of the CGWA is reviewed and remedial measures are taken including assessment of suitability of the person to head it."
"6. Petitions have been filed before this Tribunal from time to time with the grievance of illegal drawal of groundwater by hotels, industries and builders for commercial purposes. The grievance of the applicants in the present application is that there is fast depletion of ground water in NOIDA and 37 Greater NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. There is large scale extraction of groundwater by various construction companies. Directions relating to the water harvesting are not complied with. No measures are properly adopted to stop the fast depleting ground water levels."
"7. This Tribunal has ascertained facts and directed the regulatory authorities to take remedial action by way of closing such drawal, initiating prosecution and recovering compensation on „Polluter Pays‟ principle.4 A separate order is being passed in several other matters on the same subject.5 There is need for constant action by the regulatory authorities and mechanism for higher level review of working of such authorities to avoid unnecessary litigation."
"8. We may now refer to some of the proceedings before this Tribunal in the present matter. Significant proceedings are reflected in orders dated 23.04.2015, 26.07.2018, 28.08.2018, 12.11.2018, 03.01.2019 and 07.05.2019. It was noted in the order dated 23.04.2015 that ground water level has gone down in NOIDA by 15 mtrs. between 2007- 2014. On 26.07.2018, it was noted that even apart from NOIDA, Greater NOIDA, Delhi and NCR, the situation in OCS region calls for stringent regulation for ground water extraction. In the order dated 28.08.2018, the Tribunal directed the Ministry of Water Resource (MoWR), Government of India, in consultation with the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), to review the existing mechanism for effective conservation of ground water resources in OCS. It was directed that the policy framework must include monitoring mechanism by way of provision for coercive measures, consistent with the mandate in the judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in M.C Mehta (supra). The guidelines of CGWA that permission to extract ground water in over exploited, critical and semi-critical (OCS) areas is to be given only for drinking and domestic purposes were noted. OCS 4 E.g. separate order passed today in Harinder Dhingra Vs. International Recreation & Amusement Ltd. & Ors O.A No. 458/2017.5
Original Application No. 59/2012 (M.A. No. 34/2016 & M.A. No. 190/2016), Original Application No. 108/2013, Original Application No. 179/2013 , Appeal No. 67/2015 , M.A. No. 107/2019, Original Application No. 484/2015 Original Application No. 327/2018 , Original Application No. 115/2017, Original Application No. 411/2018, Original Application No. 613/2017, Original Application No. 614/2017 38 areas were identified and notified by the CGWA having regard to the depletion of groundwater level. OCS areas were further classified as „notified‟ and „non- notified‟ without any basis and „non-notified‟ were not being regulated. The Tribunal directed remedial measures to be taken."
"9. On 12.11.2018, the matter was further considered. After making reference to the 2012 Guidelines issued by the CGWA and Draft Guidelines dated 16.11.2015, the Tribunal noted following points:
i. CGWA was repeatedly disowning its responsibility on the plea that regulation of ground water was a State subject, contrary to the mandate in the judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in M.C Mehta (Supra).
ii. CGWA was failing to regulate drawal of ground water in OCS on the ground that it had not issued a notification except for some areas, and without such notification, there was no need for regulating extraction of ground water even in OCS.
iii. Extraction of ground water for commercial purposes was being allowed in OCS just by a mechanical condition that the ground water will be recharged, without ensuring compliance of such condition.
iv. Underground water was being allowed to be extracted for illegal constructions, bottling plants, swimming pools etc. without any impact study or effective steps for rain water harvesting for recharge of the ground water.
v. CGWA was repeatedly taking the plea that charges were being collected for permitting drawal of underground water for commercial purposes in OCS against the Precautionary Principle, Sustainable Development as well as Intergenerational Equity Principles.
vi. Difficulties of agriculturists needed to be addressed in a phased manner by persuading the agriculturists to switch over to less water consuming crops and to consider use of treated 39 sewage water instead of extraction of fresh underground water, wherever viable.
vii. Untreated effluents are not to be discharged in the water."
"10. Notification dated 12.12.2018 was issued by Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) which was considered by this Tribunal vide order dated 03.01.2019. The Tribunal noted from the affidavit filed by the CGWA found that utilizable water in India is 1137 BCM which comprises of 690 BCM of surface water and 447 BCM of replenishable ground water resources. In the year 2009, about 2700 BCM of ground water was available in deeper aquifers, below the zone of water level fluctuations. Thus, ground water over exploitation is recommended to be restricted to sustainability of ground water by annual replenishment in order to facilitate long term sustainability of ground water. It is further stated that per year extraction is 253 BCM which is 25% of the global ground water extraction. Out of total 6,584 assessment units, 1,034 fall in over- exploited category (where extraction is more than 100%of recharge), 253 fall in critical category (where extraction is 90-100% of the recharge), 681 fall under semi-critical category (where extraction is 70-100% of the recharge) and 4,520 are under safe category (where extraction is 90% of the recharge). About 90% extraction is for agricultural purposes, 10% for drinking, domestic and industrial purposes. Industrial use is 5%. Model building bye- laws 2016 include the provision of rain water harvesting in all new buildings on plots of 100 sq. mtrs. and above. Entire storm water is to be captured for water harvesting through suitable structures in all public and open spaces of more than 500 sq. mtrs. Buildings having minimum discharge of 10,000 liters and above are required to have waste water recycling system for horticulture purposes. „Mission Water Conservation‟ has been introduced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Inter- Ministerial Committee has been constituted under the chairmanship of the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India. The Ministry is also carrying out training programme and Information, Education & Communication (IEC) activities for awareness. The Department of Land Resources is implementing water-shed development projects. Certain States have taken initiatives including Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act, 2009 40 which ban early sowing of paddy nursery and transplantation of saplings. Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2009 prohibits drilling of deep wells within for agriculture or industrial usage, pumping of ground water for deep well of depth of 60 mtrs. or more. The CGWA has issued advisories and it requires taking of NOC for ground water withdrawal but the agriculture section is not subjected to ground water regulation on account of socio-economic implications. The steps taken by the CGWA include directions for rooftop rain water harvesting systems, ground water recharge measures along the National highways, State national highways, railway tracks, etc., artificial recharge in over-exploited areas, large and medium industries using ground water to take up the ground water conservation measures. CGWA imposes condition while granting NOC for withdrawal of ground water in States/UTs which do not have functional ground water authorities. NOCs are granted online in a user- friendly manner. Industries in safe category are exempted from NOC but in OCS areas, condition for grant of NOC is rain water harvesting/ground water recharge measures and NOCs are denied in over-exploited areas. Non- water intensive industries drawing ground water up to 100 m3/day are exempted from NOC in critical areas, non-water intensive industries drawing up to 50 m3/day are exempted from NOC. (In over-exploited areas, non-water intensive industries are exempted which are drawing ground water up to 25 m3/day. Permitted water extraction is restricted to 60% of the proposed recharge. Ground water extraction should not be exceeded 1,500m3/day for each unit. In semi-critical areas, ground water extraction is restricted to 200% and 100% of proposed recharge for non-water intensive and water intensive industries respectively. In critical areas, ground water extraction is permitted up to 100% and 50% of proposed recharge for non-water intensive and water intensive industries respectively. In over-exploited areas, ground water extraction is permitted up to 50% of the proposed recharge). Till 2015, existing industries were not required to seek any NOC. In compliance of order of the Tribunal dated 15.04.2015, existing industries were brought within the purview of NOC with effect from 16.11.2015.
13. The Tribunal noted the relevant statistics on the subject as follows:
"2. As per publication of NITI Ayog, India is placed at 41 120th amongst 122 countries in water quality index. Most states have achieved less than 50% of the total score in augmentation of groundwater resources, highlighting a growing national crisis. 54% of India‟s ground water wells are decreasing in levels and 21 major cities across the country are expected to run out of ground water by 2020. Almost none of the States have built the infrastructure required to recharge groundwater in over exploited and critical areas. Several States such as U.P., Bihar, Rajasthan etc. have not put in place any regulatory framework for managing the groundwater. These states produce 20-30% of India‟s agricultural output and groundwater accounts for 63% of all irrigation water. Therefore, unsustainable extraction in these states also poses a significant food security risk for the country.
3. About 60% of the irrigation needs, 85% of rural drinking water needs and 50% of urban water needs are met through ground water. The CGWB has categorised the areas into the following on the basis of availability of ground water resources:
Safe (<=90%, No decline in water levels)
Critical (>70% and <=100%, decline in water levels)
Semi- critical (<100%, decline in water levels)
Over- exploited (>100%, decline in water levels)
4.As per another survey, India extracts most ground water. Globally, 25% of total annual global annual water is extracted in India. The extraction level is going up continuously
5. Depletion of ground water not only creates crisis for drinking water in absence of inadequate surface water being available in certain areas where there may be drought conditions, but also affects e-flow in rivers and can also increase salinity in soil."
"14. The Tribunal accordingly held:
"27. We are satisfied that the Notification dated 12.12.2018 tested on the Precautionary Principle, Sustainable Development as well as Inter-
generational Equity Principles is unsustainable in law and instead of conservation of ground water which is necessary for providing access to drinking water in OCS areas, as well also other needs of environment, including sustenance of rivers and other water bodies, it will result in fast depletion of ground water and damage to water bodies and will be 42 destructive of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
28. Accordingly, the impugned Notification may not be given effect to in view of serious shortcomings as pointed above so that an appropriate mechanism can be introduced consistent with the needs of environment."
16. Accordingly, affidavit filed by the MoEF&CC on 18.07.2019 and report of the CPCB dated 26.06.2019 have been put up for consideration today. We take up the said reports for consideration.
17. The report dated 18.07.2019 gives statistics as follows:-
"As per the latest assessment in categories of OCS areas Delhi is ranked first as 82% of total number of assessed units followed by Rajasthan (81%), Punjab (81%), Haryana (75%), and Tamil Nadu (50%) In order to regulate ground water abstraction in Over Exploited / Semi - critical areas, CGWA notifies areas (blocks / talukas/ mandals/ firkas areas) under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for regulation of ground water development and management. In these notified areas, abstraction of ground water is not allowed for any purpose other than drinking and domestic use. For monitoring and supervision of notified area, CGWA has empowered district level authorities of State Government under Section 4 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. CGWA has notified total 162 areas in the country till 2012 out of 1033 identified Over Exploited areas."
18. Apart from giving the above statistics the report deals with the review of institutional framework, gaps in groundwater management strategy and makes recommendations providing for levy of water conservation fee, criteria for extraction of groundwater in OCS area, registration of bore- wells, utilization of treated sewage water, shifting of cropping pattern and irrigation practices, optimal use of fresh water and best conservation practices. It is suggested that guidelines be prepared applicable pan India with liberty to lay down more stringent 43 norms by the States depending on local conditions, making water resource estimation every two years, periodic assessment of OCS areas, inviting projects from experts for water management and preparation of decadal action plans.
19. The report remains deficient as the issue of preventing depletion of ground water has not been duly addressed. The effective enforcement mechanism of conditions subject to which groundwater extraction may be allowed in OCS areas has not been provided. Mere condition of recharge without clear strategy of enforcement is no safeguard for permitting extraction of groundwater. The report leaves many issues to be dealt with by further studies. The need for immediate concrete action to prevent further depletion is not met by the report nor the effective safeguards against abuse of permission for extraction in violation of conditions for extraction and effective remedies against rampant illegal extractions have been suggested. This shows that further remedial action needs to be taken.
20. The report of CPCB dated 26.06.2019 deals with methodology for assessing environmental compensation (EC), Formula for Environmental Compensation for illegal extraction of ground water, Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGw) which has been further dealt with in different categories, i.e. ECRGw for Drinking & Domestic use for household purposes and those for institutional activity, commercial complexes, townships etc., ECRGw for Packaged Drinking Water Units, ECRGw for Mining, Infrastructure and Dewatering Projects, ECRGw for Industrial Units, Deterrent factors to compensate losses and environmental damage (for packaging drinking water units, mining, industrial and commercial purposes) and Deterrent Factor . Formula for Environmental Compensation for illegal extraction of ground water is as follows:
21. 5. Formula for Environmental Compensation for illegal extraction of ground 44 water The committee recommended that the formula considering water consumption, no of days, rates for imposing Environmental Compensation based on the purpose for ECGw= Water consumption per day x Environmental Compensation rate for illegal extraction of ground water (ECRGw) x No. of Days x Deterrent Factor illegal abstraction of ground water as well as the deterrent factor detailed below:-
Where, water consumption is in m3/day and ECRGw in Rs/m3".
24. We conclude this order with the following directions:
(i) We constitute a Committee to go into the following questions:
(a) Steps required to be taken for preventing depletion of ground water.
(b) Robust monitoring mechanism to ensure that no ground water is unauthorizedly extracted, including review of manning and functioning of CGWA.
(c) Robust mechanism to monitor conditions laid down for grant of permission for extraction of ground water.
(d) Recommendations in the report of the CPCB dated 26.06.2019 referred to above.
(ii) The composition of the Committee will be as follows:-
(i) Joint Secretary, MoEF&CC
(ii) Concerned Joint Secretary, MoWR,
dealing with the subject
(iii) CGWB
(iv) National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee
(v) National Remote Sensing Center, Hyderabad
(vi) CPCB "The nodal agency will be the Joint Secretary, MoWR for coordination and compliance. The Committee may look into the reports already submitted. The report may be furnished within two months by e-mail at [email protected].
(emphasis supplied)"
4515. Thus, the matter of contamination of ground water and extraction of ground water shall be dealt with in accordance with the directions issued by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Original Application No. 685 of 2019.
16. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the monitoring by the Tribunal cannot be unending. The Road Map stands laid out. Action Plans have been prepared for compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, bio medical waste (management and handling) rules, 2016, plastic waste management rules, 2016, construction and demolition waste management rules, 2016. Authorities must now take ownership of compliance. We find that the monitoring mechanism introduced as per direction of this Tribunal, in the form of State Level Monitoring Committee under Rules 2016 and notification issued thereafter are exhaustive, it will be better, the same is adopted for all purposes by this team.
17. Accordingly, we direct that the State Level Monitoring Committee headed by Chief Secretary of the State must monitor the steps which are being taken by the District Level Monitoring Committee for compliance for the Environmental Act and in case if it is found that the failure in compliance of the order and rules, necessary steps and remedial measures be taken immediately. With the above observation the Original application which is pending from 2013 stands disposed of.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Arun Kumar Verma, EM July 19th 2021 O.A. No. 111/2013 (CZ) PN 46