National Green Tribunal
Abhisht Kusum Gupta vs Mr. Mukesh Agarwal on 5 September, 2022
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item Nos. 01 & 02 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(By Video Conferencing)
Review Application Nos. 25 and 29/2022
IN
Original Application No. 1002/2018
(I.A. No. 202/2022 & I.A. No. 212/2022)
Abhisht Kusum Gupta Applicant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority .. ... Applicant in RA 25/2022
Delhi Jal Board ........................ Applicant in RA 29/2022
Date of hearing: 05.09.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Review Application No. 25/2022
Applicant: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASGI, Mr. Rachit Mittal, Advocate with Ms. Ritu
Maheshwari, CEO for Applicant (New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority) in R.A 25/2022
Review Application No. 29/2022
Applicant: Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sakshi Popli, Advocate
for Applicant (Delhi Jal Board) in R.A 29/2022
Respondent(s): Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Advocate for DPCC
Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocate for UPPCB
Mr. Aman Bhalla, Advocate for CPCB
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Advocate for GNCTD
Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Advocate for MCD
1
ORDER
1. This order will deal with R.A No. 25/2022 and R.A No. 29/2022 filed respectively by NOIDA and Delhi Jal Board (DJB) for review of order dated 03.08.2022 in O.A No. 1002/2018, holding the said authorities accountable for water pollution and determining liability for compensation to be spent for restoration to the extent of Rs.100 and Rs.50 crore respectively, considering the violation of environmental norms, quantum of pollution and cost of remediation.
2. As the order sought to be reviewed shows, the issue for consideration was remedial action against pollution of irrigation canal in Sector 137, NOIDA. Sources of such discharge were found to be non- functional/deficient STPs in high rise buildings in Noida, allowed to be occupied before requisite treatment facilities, drains carrying untreated municipal or other waste, waste water from upstream from Delhi and Ghaziabad.
3. On verification of factual position under orders of this Tribunal, CPCB issued directions on 06.06.2019 under section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 to take remedial action to control pollution. NOIDA and Delhi Jal Board (DJB) the identified authorities required to take the remedial action but considering the compliance status even after four years of detailed orders, the Tribunal found that pending remedial action in future, for past violations, the said authorities were liable to pay compensation for restoration of the damage caused to the environment.
4. The Tribunal noted that on analysis of water samples from relevant locations of drains and STP outlets by the statutory regulators - UP State PCB and the DPCC, pollution was continuing, to the detriment of 2 environment and public health. The canal water was meant to be used by living beings and for irrigation. Pollution affected the aquatic and human life and ground and surface water sources is sources which were criminal offences under the law of the land. The designated authorities, entrusted with the task of stopping and remedying such pollution had to be held accountable.
Brief resume of proceedings before order dated 3.8.2022 Report dated 14.02.2019 by UP State PCB and NOIDA
5. The record shows that the matter was dealt with by the Tribunal for about four years prior to order under review, starting from 30.11.2018. Considering the report of the UP State PCB and NOIDA dated 14.02.2019 that pollution was originating from Delhi, the Tribunal directed joint meeting of authorities in UP and Delhi to prepare action plan for remediation. The said order is as follows:-
"
6. In view of the above, action is also required to be taken by the authorities at Delhi including the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC), Delhi Jal Board (DJB), and East Delhi Municipal Corporation. The coordination will be required by a central agency as two States are involved in dealing with the matter.
7. Accordingly, we direct the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), DPCC, DJB, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, NOIDA Authority and UPPCB to have a joint meeting within one month and to prepare an action plan in respect of action in respective States to check the water pollution which may also include action to be taken for prohibiting the discharge of effluents, for prosecuting the polluters and recovering the compensation for the damage being caused to the environment. The Nodal Agency will be CPCB for coordination and compliance. The report of the action taken be furnished to this Tribunal within two months by e- mail at [email protected]."
Report dated 18.04.2019 submitted by CPCB identifying obligation of DJB and Noida
5. Thereafter, report dated 18.04.2019 was submitted by CPCB making recommendations by concerned authorities, including NOIDA and DJB. 3 Further, report of CPCB dated 08.07.2019 referred to directions issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to the DJB and NOIDA, apart from other Authorities. The Tribunal directed DJB, NOIDA, EDMC and Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam to furnish performance guarantee in the sum of Rs. 1 Crore each. The operative part of the order is reproduced below:-
"
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the SPCB states that since pollution is originating from Delhi, the DJB and the EDMC should also be liable to pay environmental compensation for the damage to the environment in the same way as NOIDA Authority and Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, have been held to be liable by the CPCB.
7. CPCB may consider this aspect and pass appropriate orders. Having regard to the seriousness of the issue, we direct the EDMC, DJB, NOIDA Authority and the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam to furnish performance guarantees in the sum of Rs. 1 crore each to the satisfaction of CPCB undertaking to take remedial actions in terms of the directions of the CPCB, failing which the said amount will be forfeited."
Action plans submitted by DJB and other authorities for remediation and directions of this Tribunal dated 6.11.2020
6. Vide order dated 25.02.2020, status report mentioning the compliance status was considered, including the action plan filed by DJB. On 06.11.2020, the Tribunal further considered the matter and as the record shows, the DJB was duly represented by its counsel Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna. The Tribunal noted that the DJB had submitted its compliance report vide letter dated 15.10.2020. On 30.07.2021, the Tribunal reviewed the proceedings and directions for further remedial action, including remedial action by DJB was issued. Vide order dated 23.12.2021, the matter was further considered and as the record shows DJB was represented by its counsel Ms. Sakshi Popli. It was found that non-compliances were continuing for which compensation was required to be fixed. Relevant observations in this regard are as follows: 4
"13. ..... Compensation in this regard has to be as per principles laid down in M. C. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395, Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 575 and Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v UOI, (2018) 18 SCC 257. Compensation has to have deterrent element having regard to financial capacity so that the law violation is not encouraged. Compensation amount needs to be credited to a separate amount for restoration and improvement of the environment. NOIDA Authority needs to take further remedial action in the matter."
"We sum up our directions as follows:
NOIDA i. Discrepancies pointed out in para 13 regarding functional status of STPs, their compliance and connectivity to sewers to be addressed and clarified considering desludging and maintenance of sewer lines.
ii. Action against violators and colluders under Section 3 of PMLA Act, 2002, IPC as well as under Section 133 of Cr. PC to be looked into.
iii. Granting partial or completion certificates must be compliant with EC/Consent conditions.
iv. Completion of ongoing sewerage network to be ensured and steps taken in respect of 30 drains and their termination to respective existing or new STPs.
v. Mode of disposal of 6 existing STPs to be compliant with standards, including fecal coliform and utilization of treated effluents to be ensured.
UP State PCB/Irrigation Department/Urban Development, UP vi. Maintaining water quality of irrigation canal (Kondli drain) as per Water Act. STPs to be consented accordingly and regular monitoring of performance of terminal STPs as well as of group housing societies required.
vii. Khoda Nagar Palika to set up required STP and State of UP to frame and execute policy as directed in Para 17 above.
GNCTD (EDMC/DJB/DPCC) viii. Ensuring no waste water enters from Kondli drain to Noida. ix. Kondli STP should comply with standards and adequately cater to the need of designed capacity with proper utilization and disposal of effluents.
CPCB x. To evolve standards and formulate policy for maintaining and restoring water quality of storm water drains/irrigation canals and other "streams" as per the Water Act, 1974."
Order dated 3.8.2022 (sought to be reviewed)
7. Finally, the matter was considered on 03.08.2022 in the light of report about compliance status submitted by the DPCC/CPCB with regard 5 to continuing non-compliance by the DJB and report of the UP State PCB with regard to non-compliance by the NOIDA Authority. DJB was again represented by its Counsel Ms. Sakshi Popli, as shown by the record. Relevant extract in this regard is reproduced below:-
"Compliance status of Kondli STP in Delhi as found by DPCC/CPCB
11. The report of DPCC deals with the compliance of discharge in Kondli drain and compliance status of Kondli STP. The report mentions the status of Kondli STP as non-compliant for which the DPCC wrote a letter to DJB for taking remedial measures. DPCC also issued show cause notice to the operator of the STP against which the said service provider has filed WP (C) No. 4391/2021 in Delhi High Court. Report of CPCB on this very issue dated 29.07.2022 also confirms that Kondli STP is non-compliant. On the issue of diversion of waste water from Kondli drain to the sewerage system, it is found that even after such diversion the waste also is flowing in the drain and diversion is not successful. This is resulting in adding pollution load to the drain. The STP is non-compliant. DJB has been directed as follows:
"3.0 Major Observations and Recommendations Based on the inspection, following observations and recommendations are made:
DJB has created the infrastructure diversion for diversion of wastewaters generated from Kondli and Gharoli regions and same is found as operational. However, with regard to its performance, it is observed that partial flow is still flowing through Kondli-Noida drain towards NOIDA. DJB should identify the leakages and make the system full proof so that no wastewater flows towards NOIDA.
1. Tapped wastewater is diverted to existing sewerage system and same is conveyed to Kondli STP. The analytical results show that STP is non-complying with respect to prescribed norms. The quality of treated sewage at the outlet is at par with the untreated wastewater at inlet. The treated sewage is discharged to Shahdara drain which finally meets river Yamuna at downstream of Okhla Barrage.
2. It may be concluded that the purpose of the exercise of tapping the drains & its treatment, is defeated in meeting the objective. Entire wastewater flowing through the Kondli drain should be treated at Kondli STP and quality of treated sewage must meet the prescribed standards. Only after requisite treatment, the treated sewage should be allowed to be discharged into Shahdara drain.
3. However, in the present case, the wastewater of Kondli drain is diverted to Kondli STP and the STP 6 is neither having adequate capacity not it is complying with the standards. As a result, untreated/partially treated sewage is being discharged into Shahdara drain. This untreated/partially treated wastewater of Kondli drain is finally being discharged into river Yamuna via Shahdara drain."
Compliance status of water quality standards in Noida, as per UP State PCB
12. The report of the UP State PCB dated 11.04.2022 is about water quality of the drain. The report of the State PCB gives the water quality of samples taken on 07.01.2022, 28.01.2022, 14.02.2022, 04.03.2022 and 28.03.2022. The water quality does not meet the prescribed standards. It will suffice to reproduce the analysis of the sample taken on 28.03.2022 which is as follows:
Date of Sample Collection-28.03.2022 Parameters Sampling Point Up Steam Down Stream Lat-28.601913 Lat-28.473076 Long-77.336993 Long-77.405751 Kondli drain near Kondli Drain near Haridrshan Police Vill- Chak Chowki, Sector-11, Noida Mangurola, Sector-
168, Noida
Colour Blackish Blackish
Odour Unpleasant Unpleasant
pH 7.51 7.59
COD (mg/1) 416 304
BOD (mg/1) 144 90
TSS (mg/1) 264 138
Total Coliform 33x105 27x105
(MPN/100m1)
Fecal Coliform 27x105 17x105 "
(MPN/100m1)
8. Water quality of STPs in NOIDA was noted as follows:-
"WATER QUALITY OF STP's IN NOIDA Parameters STP Detail Sector- Sector- Sector-54 Sector-54 Sector- Sector-
50 50 Noida Noida 123 168
Noida Noida (33 MLD (54 MLD Noida Noida
(25 MLD (34 MLD SBR SBR (35 MLD (50
SBR SBR Outlet), Outlet), SBR MLD SBR
Outlet), Outlet), Noida Noida Outlet), Outlet),
Noida Noida Noida Noida
Colour Colourless Colourless Colourless Colourless Colourless Colourless
Odour Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless
pH (6.5- 7.39 7.32 7.47 7.53 7.59 7.61
9.0)
BOD (30 21 18 15 13.5 27 24
mg/I)
COD (250 136 128 112 104 168 160
mg/I)
7
TSS (100 60 58 55 51 74 70
mg/I)
Phosphoro 1.30 0.54 1.10 0.50 0.12 0.68
us (as PO4)
(5 mg/I)
Nitrogen 0.44 0.50 0.32 0.42 0.28 1.0
(as NO3)
mg/1
Total 11x102 14x102 13x102 15x102 16x102 20x102
Coliform
(MPN/100
mL)
Fecal Coliform 830 680 780 930 540 780 "
(<1000 MPN/
100mL)
9. Having regard to the consideration and discussion, the Tribunal recorded the failure of NOIDA and DJB and estimated the remediation cost as follows:-
"Failure of State PCB and Noida in its duty to manage sewage and making erring group housing societies accountable to the detriment of public health and safety
21. It is clear that out of 95 group housing societies, in 56 group housing societies either there is no treatment of sewage or only partial treatment. Contrary to the consent/EC conditions, untreated sewage is going outside the group housing societies either in the general sewer or directly in the drain. The State PCB has still not finalized the compensation nor cancelled Consents nor taken any other effective measure to prevent such discharge. NOIDA Authority has allowed third party rights to be created and allowed a situation in which water pollution load can be controlled by preventing occupation. If without functional STPs, the group housing societies were not allowed be occupied, the situation could have been better handled. There is no effective monitoring by Noida to perform its essential duties. It is surprising that it could not create an environment cell and hire any professional in seven months. It is difficult to believe that this job was so difficult. For this lapse, it is necessary to fix accountability of NOIDA Authority. Even seven months after this lapse was pointed out vide order dated 23.12.2021, no effective action has been taken either to stop pollution or to make the group housing societies effectively accountable. No coercive steps have been like blacklisting, cancelling occupancy certificate/completion certificate. Further, six STPs of NOIDA which have been wrongly classified as compliant. They have to be taken as non-compliant with regard to fecal coliform and BOD levels. 30 drains which are carrying untreated water pollution also remain to be remedied. NOIDA has thus to take remedial action, apart from accountability for the past violations.
Failure of DJB in preventing pollution
24. The CPCB has found the DJB STPs to be non-compliant contrary to their claim put forward earlier for which it has to be held accountable. Its wastewater is said to be of 90 MGD which is not being fully treated.8
25. xxx..................................xxx........................................xxx Estimated extent of pollution and remediation cost
26. The sewer generated from said 56 non-compliant group housing societies is estimated to about 100 MLD. Estimated amount of pollution required to be treated by DJB is said to be about 90 MGD, as mentioned earlier. Thus, estimated cost of remediation may be about 380 crores. The capital cost of each MLD treatment is about Rs. 2 Crores, apart from running cost1. The damage to environment and public health is much more than the cost of remediation."
10. The Tribunal also noted the earlier orders of Hon'ble Supreme court in Paryavaran Suraksha, (2017) 5 SCC 326 and orders of the Tribunal dated 21.05.2020 in OA 593/2017, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., requiring preventing discharge of untreated sewage before discharge in drain/river, order dated 06.12.2019 in O.A No. 673/2018, In Re: News item published in "The Hindu" authored by Shri Jacob Koshy, titled "More river stretches are now critically polluted: CPCB"
and summed up the remedial steps as follows:-
"Summing up of some of the required immediate remedial steps
29. Based on the observations in para 20 to 26, we may sum up our directions under section 15 of the NGT Act for remedial action for protection of environment based on credible factual reports of statutory regulators - CPCB, UP PCB, NOIDA and DPCC :
i) CPCB may issue appropriate directions to all PCBs/PCCs within two months, to give effect to section 24 of the Water Act, to the effect that Canals, water bodies (lentic or lotic) and the Natural Storm water drains are not to be used for discharge of treated or untreated trade or sewage effluents. The storm water drains, canals and water bodies need to be geo tagged and given UID.
In any case, no consent be given for discharging effluents not meeting BOD criteria of Class "B". Drains built exclusively as conveyance system (open sewer) must terminate to STPs.
ii) CTO granted to the Group Housing Societies (GHS) may require standards and specifications as per MoEF&CC Draft Notification dated 25.02.2022. SPCBs need to ensure utilisation of treated sewage. Mode of disposal should not be the drains. Effluents may go to sewers leading to STPs.
1 https://www.cseindia.org/cost-estimation-for-planning-and-designing-of-decentralised-wastewater-treatment- system-2073#:~:text=2.5-3 9
iii) Thirty identified drains or any other such drain carrying sewage be diverted to existing STPs and not to Noida drain. Such drains are to be used for flood management.
iv) All existing STPs and upcoming STPs need to meet standards as directed by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.04.2019 in OA No. 1069/2018, Nitin Shankar Deshpande vs. Union of India & Ors. subject to further directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in pending proceedings.
v) MoU for utilisation for sewage between Power Plant and Noida be executed without delay.
vi) ACS, UD of UP need to immediately review and ensure treatment of sewage generated by Khoda - Makanpur.
vii) DJB may ensure compliance of its four STPs so as to meet standards as directed by the Tribunal. Treated effluents of 90 MGD from four Phases be utilised rather than disposed in Shahdara drain.
viii) No effluents be disposed by NCT Delhi in Kondli/ Noida drain.
ix) CPCB may independently monitor the directions from (ii) to (viii) and give its report to Chairman, CPCB who may issue further directions for compliance.
Further Directions
30. Apart from above remedial action to be taken by concerned authorities and monitored at highest level by the Chief Secretaries, UP and Delhi directly or through any appropriate mechanism, it is necessary to determine accountability for the past failures causing huge damage to the environment and public health and to meet cost of remediation. Pending consideration of action against other authorities and final accountability of NOIDA Authority and DJB, they are directed to deposit respectively a sum of Rs. 100 Crores Rs. 50 Crores in a separate account with CPCB towards interim compensation to be utilized for restoration measures in terms of a remedial plan to be prepared jointly by a joint Committee of Chairman CPCB, Chairman DPCC and Chairman UPPCB. Chairman CPCB will chair and steer the proceedings. The said Committee will be at liberty to co-opt any other expert/institution for the purpose and also identify executing agency which will act in coordination with the nominees of Chief Secretaries of Delhi and UP. The Chief Secretaries of Delhi and UP will be free to identify the erring officers in the process and take remedial action and recover compensation from such erring officers/violators, including the group housing societies. Further action taken reports be filed within three months by the Chief Secretaries, Delhi and UP after coordinating with authorities in their respective States and by Chairman, CPCB by e-mail at judicial- [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF."
Consideration of Review Applications and finding RA 25/2022 by Noida 10
11. We may now refer to the grounds mentioned in Review Applications. In R.A No. 25/2022 filed by NOIDA, the grounds for review are summed up in the synopsis as follows:-
"(i) Review Applicant has taken substantial and sincere efforts to operationalize / streamline sewerage system in Group Housing Projects. Whereas out of 95 Group Housing Projects, 77 are having running STPs and 18 are discharging sewerage in central STPs of Noida and one STP is under construction. The Review Applicant has been diligently taking suitable punitive actions against erring projects from time to time.
(ii) Substantial measures have been taken in terms of treatment of Noida drain (Kondli Drain) by construction of three In-Situ Wetlands (out of which one is complete and successfully operational and other two are under construction which would be completed by December, 2022), engagement of expert agency to finalize and execute action plan for all drains within reasonable time frame and completion of essential sewerage works.
(iii) The review applicant has undertaken capacity enhancement of central sewerage treatment facilities by establishing two new STPs (out of which one is completed and one is to be completed by September, 2022).
(iv) More sincere efforts shall be made to finalize environment monitoring expert agency within next two months.
Hence the present Review Application."
12. We have heard Shri. Sanjay Jain, learned ASG and also Ms. Ritu Maheshwari, CEO, NOIDA, present by video conferencing. As already mentioned, the ground of review acknowledge that pollution is still continuing and remedial action is proposed. Inspite thereof, contention is that NOIDA has no liability for such continuing pollution.
13. We are unable to accept the submissions. As already noted in the order dated 03.08.2022 (in para 13)) that 38 out of 76 STPs of the group housing societies were non-compliant and State PCB has issued notices to them for levying compensation. This could be prevented if these societies were not allowed to be occupied without existence of waste water treatment facilities and requisite consents from the PCB. As per version of the PCB, prosecution has been initiated by the PCB against 62 defaulters. Action is 11 to be taken against the remaining group housing societies. The Tribunal thus held (in para 17) that 56 group housing complexes were non- compliant as per updated report of NOIDA Authority dated 01.08.2022. With regard to six operational STPs, the Tribunal found that fecal coliform standard was not compliant with the order of this Tribunal dated 30.04.2019 in OA No. 1069/2018, Nitin Shankar Deshpande v. UOI & Ors. It remains undisputed that remediation of pollution from 30 drains is yet to completed. Non compliances are not only with regard to faecal coliform standards but also others, as already noted.
14. In this view of the matter, the stand in the Review Application that all the group housing societies should be treated as compliant, the STPs of NOIDA should be treated as compliant merely because the review applicant is in process of examining the viability and financial implications for installing Tertiary Treatment Plants (TTPs) in terms of directions of the State PCB as per order of this Tribunal dated 30.04.2019 in O.A No. 1069/2018 (Supra). On its own stand that requisite tertiary treatment plants are yet to be installed by NOIDA, non-compliance remains. As already mentioned, with regard to Group Housing Societies, many of the STPs remain non-compliant. Even if further remedial steps have been taken, as claimed, liability in respect of past violations is not affected.
15. In view of above, even on reconsideration, we do not find any merit in review application filed by NOIDA. The same is dismissed. RA 29/2022 by DJB
16. Coming to the RA 29/2022 filed by the DJB, the first ground in the application is that DJB was neither a party nor was ever heard by the Tribunal. This stand is against record. Proceedings before the Tribunal 12 are not governed strictly by CPC but, principles of natural justice have to be followed. Order of this Tribunal dated 14.2.2019 shows that direction for joint meeting of Delhi authorities and UP authorities was directed (including DJB), considering the factual report. Vide order dated 8.7.2019, CPCB issued direction to DJB under section 5 of the EP Act in response to which the DJB filed its action plan on 25.2.2020. Order dated 06.11.2020 shows that DJB was represented by Shri Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate. Orders dated 23.12.2021 and 03.08.2022 show that DJB was represented by Ms. Sakshi Popli, Advocate who has filed the present review application. It is matter of record that such factually wrong and misleading stand should be taken by a statutory authority.
17. Further, contention of DJB that no action could be taken even if STPs were not to be compliant with order of this Tribunal dated 30.04.2019 in OA No. 1069/2018, as it involves change over from old technology to new technology. This stand is untenable as order of this Tribunal dated 30.04.2019 in OA No. 1069/2018 remains binding as decree under Section 25 of the NGT Act.
18. Further contention of DJB is that work order has been issued by the DJB on 26.07.2018 execution of which has been delayed for reasons beyond its control. Permission for cutting of trees has not yet been granted and there was pandemic. This stand itself shows that non compliance is continuing for which liability cannot be avoided on ground taken in view of precautionary principle and absolute liability principles of environment law.
19. Further contention that Yamuna Monitoring Committee constituted by this Tribunal in OA No. 06/2012, Manoj Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors. has monitored compliance is equally untenable. Mere fact that Monitoring 13 Committee monitored Yamuna pollution does not mean that the DJB should be treated as compliant, when it is not shown that the said Committee found DJB compliant. Far from this, DJB was repeatedly found non compliant as the reports will show and directions were issued for remedial action which remain uncomplied till date.
20. With regard to compliance status, the Tribunal has categorically recorded in the order dated 03.08.2022 based on the report of CPCB and DPCC (para 11) that DJB was non-compliant for which show cause notice was issued which is also supported by report of CPCB.
21. We also deal with the submission of the review applicant that as per Supreme Court judgement in Paryavaran Surakhsha, new STPs could be completed in five years. There is no such liberty as assumed. As per observations in Para 10 of the said judgment, norms for generating the funds are to be finalized within one year from 31.03.2017 to be operative from next year i.e. 1.4.2018. In para 8, the period of three years is mentioned only for CETPs and not for STPs. Further, as per para 16, the timelines were not applicable to situations where there were no prevalent timelines. In any case, even if a period of three years is to be taken from February 22, 2017 (the date of the judgement), the same expired on February 21, 2020. Thus, accountability on 'Polluter Pays' principle cannot be avoided for discharge of untreated sewage in violation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Constitutional provisions under Article 243 W, 243 X and 243 Y read with item 6, Schedule 12 of the Constitution. Further, there are binding directions issued by the CPCB under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 in terms of which this Tribunal passed earlier binding orders. Judgement in Nitin Deshpande, O.A No. 1069/2018 (supra), was rendered more than three years ago. Plea of the DJB that there was no reasonable 14 time for compliance is equally untenable. Moreover, non compliance is not confined to faecal coliform standards.
22. There is thus no merit in RA 29/2022.
Quantum of compensation
23. The Tribunal, vide order dated 18.12.2019 in OA No. 200/2014, M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. (para 23), noted that for setting up of STPs standard cost involved is said to be around Rs. 2 crores per MLD as per works allotted by NMCG. Cost of establishing sewerage networks, including setting up of pumping stations is said to be around Rs. 5 crores per MLD.
24. As the order under review shows, quantum of compensation has been worked out (in para 26) considering the estimated cost of water treatment. Infact against the estimated cost of Rs. 380 crores, compensation levied is only Rs. 150 crores to be utilized for restoration measures as per plan to be prepared by a joint Committee to be headed by Chairman CPCB with nominees of Delhi Government and UP Government.
For above reasons, Review Applications are dismissed being devoid of merit.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM September 05, 2022 Review Application No. 25/2022 IN Original Application No. 1002/2018 (I.A. No. 202/2022 & I.A. No. 212/2022) With Review Application No. 29/2022 IN Original Application No. 1002/2018 (I.A. No. 211/2022) AB 15