Supreme Court of India
Indian Council For Envirolegal Action & ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 April, 2000
Equivalent citations: JT1999(10)SC327, 2000(3)SCALE415A
Author: N. Santosh Hegde
Bench: N. Santosh Hegde
ORDER
JUDGMENT
1. This Court on 27th of July, 1999 while considering l.A. Nos. 2 & 17 directed that the copies of the above I.A. shall be served on all the parties by the counsel for the applicant. The contesting respondents have filed the counter affidavit opposing the said application. On the said date, this Court also directed the District Judge to consider the representations, if any, received in respect of the villages of Erdanoor and Ismail Khanpet since then the learned District Judge has submitted his report.
2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the learned District Judge has only taken into account the crop loss suffered by the concerned villagers and he has not taken into account the entitlement of the villagers who have suffered adverse health problems. She : has also prayed for disbursement of compensation from out of the amount already deposited towards the compensation. We consider it appropriate that this question shall be decided after we take the report of the learned District Judge for consideration which will be done on April 25, 2000.
3. As directed by this Court on the last date of hearing, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) has filed Progress Report dated 30th of November, 1999 and 27th of March, 2000 wherein details of the implementation status of the order of this Court dated 27.7.1999 are furnished. It is noticed from the said reports of the APPCB that certain industries have not complied with its directions consequent to which either closer orders or show cause notices have been issued to these industries by the Board and steps taken by them to comply with those directions are kept under watch by the Board. The Board shall by the next date of hearing file a fresh status report in regard to the compliance undertaken by the industries mentioned at Annexure-I to the above report so that this Court can take necessary action in regard to the defaulting industries.
4. The Board shall also file similar reports in regard to the newly identified defaulting industries shown at Annexure-II to the said report. It is noticed from the particulars given at Annexure-III to the above report that the Board has taken certain actions in regard to the industries mentioned in the said Annexure and remedial action taken by the industries are kept under watch by the Board a report in regard to the latest progress made by these industries may also be filed by the Board by the next date of hearing.
5. The Central Pollution Control Board in its report on status of polluting industries located at Patancheru and Bollarum has made some comments in regard to the industries referred therein. The State Pollution Control Board will take note of the same.
6. It is noticed from the report of the State Board so also the complaint made on behalf of the petitioners that the CETPs though set up have not achieved the required standard as yet and there are serious short comings in regard to the Bollarum CETP. The counsel appearing for the CETPs, has informed this Court that all steps are being taken to bring the CETPs to the standard including the one at Bollarum and same will be achieved definitely within three months. As a final chance, we give these CETPs time till next date of hearing to bring it up to the standard. The State Pollution Control Board shall inspect the functioning of the CETPs and report to this Court as to their performances.
7. On behalf of the petitioners, complaint has been made that some of the industries and the CETPs are using fresh water for treating the effluent which is causing shortage of fresh water and further that the CETPs are discharging the treated effluent to water bodies. This is denied by the counsel appearing for the industries as also for the CETPs. The State Board will look into this > complaint and submit its report.
8. The State Pollution Control Board has stated in its report that it will take substantial sum of money to construct 18 km pipe line linking the CETPs at Patancheru and 5 Bollarum and ultimately connecting the same with capital K & S Main of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewage Board (HMWSSB). The report also shows that this proposal has been incorporated as a 0 medium term measure in the joint action plan which was taken note of by this Court in its order dated 10th of November, 1998 and this Court had directed the State Pollution Control Board to pursue the project for providing an out let for the waste water. We notice that hardly any progress has been made in this regard though the State Government has accepted this project in principal. Since this is a vital project for the efficient and only method of disposal of the treated effluent from the CETPs to the main sewer all feasible steps should be taken at the earliest including providing of required finances. From the report, referred to above, we notice that the HMWWSB has certain reservations in regard to this project and has raised certain objections in regard to the same. We have already issued notice in I.A. No. 17 to HMWWSB and their response in regard to the above project will be considered on the next date of hearing but in the meantime we make it clear that State of Andhra Pradesh should inform this Court in regard to the steps taken by it as to providing required finances for the said project either through State founding or through financial institutions.
9. We notice from the report of the State Pollution Control Board that no provision yet has been made for the confiscation of tankers which are illegally transporting the industrial effluents under the E.P.A. We also notice that the State Government has already addressed letters in this regard to MOEF, Government of India to amend Motor Vehicles Act suitably to implement the directions of this Court. The State Government should file a status report in regard to the progress made in making necessary statutory provisions for confiscation of the tankers which are violating the provisions of the E.P.A.
10. Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that apart from steps that have been taken to monitor the water pollution in the villages concerned the damage caused to the air in those villages should also be taken note of and necessary directions be issued to combat this hazard created by the polluting industries. We, however, consider it appropriate that this issue be considered separately after the problem of water pollution is appropriately dealt with.
11. On behalf of the petitioners, it is pointed out to us that though the State Government has taken steps to supply drinking water to the 15 villages concerned, the State Government has been demanding cost of supply of this water from out of the 5 of the identified villages and demand notices lave been issued in this regard to the Panchayats concerned. On behalf of the State Government, it is submitted that while free drinking water is being supplied to 10 of the identified villages in regard to the other 5 villages while making the supply of drinking water the Panchayats concerned have been called upon to pay the cost of the supply. It is contended that since it is the responsibility of the Panchayats to supply water this burden should be borne by the village Panchayats. We, however, think that since lack of drinking water to these villages are caused because of the policy of the State Government permitting the establishment of polluting industries whose existence has effected the natural sources of water of these villages, it is but fair that this necessity of supply of drinking water at least for the time being be met by the State Government, of course. Under the principle of "Polluter Pays", it may become necessary for us to decide the liability of the polluting industries in regard to the expense. We will decide this question in due course but till then the villagers or the Panchayats should not be compelled to pay for the drinking water. However, it is open to the State Government to apportion and collect this liability from amongst the polluting industries till such time as we decide this question.
12. While we notice some progress in implementations of the various directions of this Court, we also notice the fact that the problem in question has been brought to the notice of this Court as far back as in the year 1990. In spite of the best of efforts of this Court, progress achieved is not satisfactory. Therefore, the concerned respondents will take notice of this tardy progress and are hereby directed to co-operate in achieving the desired results without further delay.
13. Call this matter for the purpose of considering the status report directed to be filed in this order on 18th of July, 2000.