National Green Tribunal
Govind Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan Through Its ... on 4 June, 2020
Item No. 01(Through VC-Bhopal)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 153/2017
(M.A. No. 28/2018)
Govind Sharma Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 04.06.2020
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAWAN SINGH GARBYAL, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s) Mr. Nikita Delouri, Advocate
For Respondent(s) Mr. Arvind Soni, Advocate for
RSPCB
ORDER
M.A. No. 28/2018 Heard the Misc. Application No. 28/2018. This is an amendment application.
The application is allowed. Amendment be incorporated forthwith.
Main Matter The present application is filed against the inaction on the part of the respondents to take effective steps towards Pollution Control in the City of Jaipur and other major Cities of Rajasthan caused by vehicular traffic. The applicant has prayed for direction to the respondent not to grant renewal of the permit to the diesel operated transport vehicles, direct the respondents to grant replacement to the existing transport vehicles and to take steps to completely phase out the BS-I and BS-II public transport vehicles, to 1 direct the respondents for scrapping of old BS-1 and BS-2 Public Transport Vehicles.
Heard the Learned Counsels for the parties. The matter has been dealt with by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 21/2014, Vardaman Kaushik Vs. UOI & Ors., where the Tribunal held as follows:
It is well acknowledged that heavy commercial diesel vehicles greatly contribute to pollution of air. [ The order dated 11.12.2015 is as follows:
"As an interim measure till next date of posting subject to hearing of all the concerned parties, we direct that Diesel Vehicles of more than 10 years of age as already directed as well as new diesel vehicle would not be registered in NCT, Delhi".
The order dated 10.11.2016 is as follows:
"All the judgments and orders passed by the Tribunal dated 26th November, 2014, 04th December, 2014, 07th April, 2015, 10th April, 2015, 18th May, 2015, 28th April, 2015 and 11th December, 2015 in case of Vardhaman Kaushik Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Original Application No. 21/2014 and 10th December, 2015 in the case of Vikrant Kumar Tongad Vs. Environment Pollution (Prevention Control) Authority & Ors. shall be applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the orders passed in the case of respective States and NCT, Delhi."
3. The above order was made absolute on 10.11.2016 in respect of some other States also.
4. However, it has been brought to our notice that out of category of diesel vehicles, private cars and SUVs with the engine capacity of 2000 cc capacity and above which were earlier prohibited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.12.2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029/1985 in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. U.O.I. and Ors., were permitted subsequently vide order dated 12.08.2016 subject to certain conditions i.e. upon deposit 2 of 1% of ex-show room price of every diesel car that is sold by any manufacturer/dealer in Delhi & NCR region towards environment protection charge.
7. On 30.01.2018, the Tribunal considered the applications of BS-IV compliant new diesel heavy vehicles owners engaged for purpose of essential services and permitted their registration subject to certain conditions. The said order is as follows:
"We, therefore, allow these applications directing the Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of NCT Delhi to register the BS-IV compliant vehicles referred to in the said applications on the following conditions:-
1. That the new vehicles that are sought to be registered now should be BS-IV compliant.
2. The Applicant shall file an Affidavit before the Tribunal as well as before RTO that they do not possess or engage any diesel vehicle/truck/tanker which is more than 10 years old for the purpose of transportation.
3. It is also directed to furnish details of the other vehicles owned by this Applicant in the form of Affidavit.
4. The said vehicle should be duly maintained and used only for exclusive purpose of carrying petroleum products and providing essential services or as indicated herein and no other use.
5. It should not increase the width or height of the vehicles and it should be strictly within the specified limit.
6. All these vehicles will be fitted with GPS.
7. The log-book shall also be maintained."
15. When we compare BS-IV fuel with BS-IV, there is a massive improvement in environmental terms. Once BS- VI emission norms are enforced, there will be a 68% improvement in PM2.5. This is not a small change. It is a vast improvement and the faster it is brought, the better it is. The amicus curiae has strenuously urged that, at least, in the NCT of Delhi, the BS-VI norms be applied for sale of vehicle form 01.04.2020. We feel that it may not be practical to introduce BS-VI compliant vehicles region- wise or city-wise. In our view, the BS-IV experiment in 3 this regard was not very successful BS-VI compliant vehicles are going to be more expensive that BS-IV compliant vehicles. People have a tendency to buy cheaper vehicle(s) even from a neighboring city. We also strongly feel that the problem of pollution is not limited to the NCR of Delhi but it is a problem which has engulfed the entire country especially the major cities. India has the dubious distinction of having 15 out of the 20 most polluted cities in the world. The pollution in Gwalior, Raipur & Allahabad is worse than Delhi. The situation is alarming and critical. It brooks no dely.
16. It is an established principle of law that the right to life, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to a decent environment. It includes within its ambit the right of a citizen to live in a clean environment. With regard to vehicular traffic, this Court has issued a number of directions to ensure a clean environment and reduce pollution. It has been held that the right to clean environment is a fundamental right. The right to live in an environment free from smoke and pollution follows from the "quality" of life which is an inherent part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to live with human dignity becomes illusory in the absence of a healthy environment. The right to life not only means leading a life with dignity but includes within its ambit the right to lead a healthy, robust life in a clean atmosphere free from pollution. Obviously, such rights are not absolute and have to co-exist with sustainable development. Therefore, if there is a conflict between health and wealth, obviously, health will have to be given precedence, When we are concerned with the health of not one citizen but the entire citizenry including the future citizens of the country, the larger public interest has to outweigh the much smaller pecuniary interest of the industry, in this case the automobile industry, especially when the entire wherewithal to introduce the cleaner technology exists.
17. It is therefore necessary to ensure that BS-VI compliance is uniform throughout the country so that even those areas of the country which fortunately have not suffered the ills of extreme pollution are safe in the future. The sale of automobiles and other vehicles is rising exponentially and the number of vehicles on the road is increasing day by day. Therefore, even a day's delay in enforcing BS-VI norms is going to harm the 4 health of the people. We are dealing here with a situation where children and unborn children suffer from pollution and issues of inter-generational equity are involved. Do we as a society or as manufacturers of automobiles have a right to manufacture more polluting vehicles when we have the technology to manufacture less polluting vehicles? The answer is obviously a big NO. If we were to factor only economics even then it makes no economic sense to have more polluting vehicles on the roads. The effect of pollution on the environment and health is so huge that it cannot be compensated in the marginal extra profits that the manufacturers might make."
The primary grievance raised in this application and the relief sought by the applicant is in respect of restraining the plying of vehicles which are not BS-IV compliant. The identical questions were raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2002 (4) SCC 356 and before the larger Bench of this Tribunal in above referred case and had been heard and finally decided in respect of the NCR area and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had further directed to implement it throughout India. In view of the fact that the questions raised in the instant application is similar to one decided in M.C. Mehta case and Vardaman Kaushik case, we hold that the principle laid down therein can also apply to the present case.
Accordingly, the Original Application No. 153/2017 stands disposed of. No order as to cost.
Justice Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Satyawan Singh Garbyal, EM June 04, 2020 SN 5