National Green Tribunal
M C Mehta vs Union Of India on 2 December, 2016
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL,
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 200/2014
(M.A. No. 205 of 2016, M.A. No. 206 of 2016, M.A. No. 224 of 2016,
M.A. No.585 of 2016, M.A. No.815 of 2016 & M.A. No.1199 of 2016)
(C.W.P. No. 3727/1985)
And
Original Application No. 501 of 2014
(M.A. No. 404 of 2015)
And
Original Application No. 146 of 2015
IN THE MATTER OF : -
M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors.
And
Anil Kumar Singhal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
And
Society for Protection of Environment & Biodiversity & Anr.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE U.D.SALVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. BIKRAM SINGH SAJWAN, EXPERT MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AJAY A DESHPANDE, EXPERT MEMBER
Present Applicant: Mr. M. C. Mehtha, Adv. Petitioner in person with
Ms. Katyani, Ms. Mehak Advs.
Mr. Rahul Choudhary and Ms. Meera Gopal, Advs.
Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Ms. Divya Sharma and Mr.
Salik Shafique, Advs.
Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Dhayani, Advs.
for UPPCB
Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. for UPCB
Mr. Anil Grover, AAG and Mr. Rahul Khurana, Mr.
Sandeep Yadav, Adv., State of Haryana
Mr. I.K. Kapila, Adv. for UP Jal Nigam & UK Pey
Jal Nigam
Mr. Abhishek Yadav for State of U.P.
Mr. M.Z. Choudhary, Mr. S.A. Zaidi and Ms. Mansi
Chahal, Advs. for Leather Industries.
Ms. Neelam Rathore, Adv. for Association of
Textile Processors & Uttar Pradesh Dyes and
Bleachers Association (Micro & Small) & MLA
Group
Ms. Priyanka Sinha, Advs for State of Jharkhand
Mr. Rudreshwar Singh and Mr. Gautam Singh,
Advs. for State of Bihar & Bihar SPCB
Ms. Alpana Poddar, Adv. with Mr. Bhupender
Kumar, LA, CPCB
Ms. Panchajanya Batra Singh, Adv for Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Mr. Ishwer Singh, Adv. with Mr. Sandeep,
Director
Ms. Priyanka Sinha, Adv.
Ms. D. Bharati Reddy, Adv. For State of
Uttarakhand
Mr. Ravindra Kumar Adv. for NOIDA and Greater
NOIDA
Ms. Pushpila Bisht, Adv. for UPSMA & AIDA
Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, adv. for JSPCB
1
Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, Adv. with Mr. Dinesh Jindal,
LO, Delhi Pollution Control Committee
Mr. Guntur Prabhakar and Mr. Guntur Pramod
Kumar, Adv. For State of A.P.
Mr. Kundan Kumar Mishra and Mr. Atul Batra,
Advs. for Mother Dairy, Pilakhua Unit
Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri, Adv. for CECB
Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Jindal, LO,
Delhi Pollution Control Committee
Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv. for JSPCB
Mr. V. K. Shukla, Ms. Vijay Laxmi Advs. for State
of MP
Mr. Ravi P. Mehrotra and Mr. Abhinav Kr. Malik,
Advs. for UPSIDC
Ms. Panchajanya Batra Singh, Adv. for Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Ms. Antima Bazaz, Adv. For AIDA
Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, AAG with Mr. Gaurav
Dhingra and Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advs.
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Adv. for State of Uttar
Pradesh (Urban Development Department)
Mr. Asha N. Basu and Mr. Amit Agarwal, Advs.
Mr. B. V. Nirern, Mr. S. N. Jha, Advs.
Present: Applicant: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Adv.
Respondent No.3: Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Dhayani, Advs.
Respondent No.8: Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. for UPCB Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv for State of U.P. Mr. B. V. Nirern, Mr. S. N. Jha, Advs. Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, AAG with Mr. Gaurav Dhingra and Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advs. Present: Applicant: Mr. Rahul Choudhary & Ms. Meera Gopal, Advs.
Respondent No.2: Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Dhayani, Advs. Respondent No. 5: Mr. Sudhir Kulshrestha, Adv. Respondent No.8: Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. for UPCB Respondent Nos. 11 and 12:Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Adv. SPENBIO Mr. Rajkumar, Adv. & Mr. Bhupendra Kumar, CPCB Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv Mr. B. V. Nirern, Adv.
Ms. Panchajanya Batra Singh, Adv. For Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Mr. B. V. Nirern, Mr. S. N. Jha, Advs. Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, AAG with Mr. Gaurav Dhingra and Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advs.
Date and Orders of the Tribunal
Remarks
Item No.
29 to 31
In furtherance to our order dated 22nd November, December 02, 2016 2016, Professor Vinod Tare, Professor Gusain, Prof. S.P. ss Singh, IIT Roorkee and Prof. Indrajit Dubey, IIT, Kharagpur were present yesterday and had made submissions at length before the Tribunal with regard to the work done by the consortium of seven I.I.T.s and the 2 report submitted by them and the recommendation made. The Tribunal had heard the group of these professors at Item No. length and the matter continued for today when Professor 29 to 31 December Vinod Tare and Professor Gussain are present. We 02, 2016 consider it appropriate to record the gist of what had been ss submitted by them and deliberated upon at length with assistance of all the Learned Counsel appearing in this case.
We may notice that Government of India and Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on its own had constituted the consortium of the seven I.I.T.s. The Memorandum of agreement was executed between the I.I.T.s and the Government of India to prepare Ganga River Basin Management Plan. They had submitted various reports commencing from 2010 and the consolidated final report was submitted in the year 2015. It is obvious that these reports were hardly acted upon and they remained part of Govt. archive. It appears that there has been hardly any implementation on this report, the Learned Counsel appearing for Central Pollution Control Board and Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board submits that the report was never shared with them and the report did not form the basis for preparation of Joint Action Plan.
Be as that it may, we would like to record the gist of what has been stated by the experts of IIT consortium in response to the specific questions that had been framed by the Tribunal.
1. To the query made regarding data collection and 3 confirmation of data placed before the consortium, it was stated before us that no Item No. primary data had been collected by the 29 to 31 December consortium of IITs. In fact, it did not even 02, 2016 form the part of the assigned job. They also ss did not verify the collected data which had been submitted to them by various agencies during the implementation of their project in the year 2010. However, in relation to Water Resources, some verification was done. It is further stated that IITC (IIT Consortium) did not collect primary data on industrial/domestic sewage discharges (or other need based data) which were to be provided to us by the government. However, IITC did conduct a very limited number of field measurements of river flows and cross- section, aquatic biodiversity, wastewater discharges, etc., primarily to get a rudimentary idea about such aspects, whenever secondary data was completely absent or was judged to be of poor quality. The first of its report was submitted to the Government in 2010 it recommended that it was necessary to have detailed investigation in each field as it was a pre-requisite for the purpose of proper result oriented reports. However, till 2015, the submission of the final report, no primary and customised data or details were either collected or provided to the 4 Indian Institute of Technology consortium.
2. One of the main reasons for high pollution of river Item No. 29 to 31 Ganga was excessive extraction of water at Haridwar December downstream. This was on two counts, one diversion 02, 2016 ss of major part of the river flow to the canals, secondly indiscriminate, unregulated extraction of groundwater for agricultural, domestic and industrial purposes in the entire basin particularly in the section from Haridwar to Kanpur. Nearly 80% of the water was being extracted in different forms. Besides this, heavy industrial and domestic effluent was being discharged into the river thus bringing its pollution to a very high scale and little flow was left in the river of her natural water or her tributaries.
3. In the opinion of the consortium and even today, the expert advice is that there should be complete projects prepared for smaller sections rather than planning the cleaning of river Ganga from one stretch to another at one stroke. In other words, complete urban plan should be prepared for a town to ensure that pollutant do not enter the river rather than cleaning the river without paying any attention to the drains and small rivers flowing through urban areas which carry high polluting effluents to the river. To be more clear, it would be appropriate to clean the city drain as well as the river and not only clean river and leave the city drain. All drains particularly the drains flowing in Segment-B of 5 Phase-I are drains carrying mixed waste that is the drain which in fact are storm-water drains carry Item No. sewage, industrial, domestic effluent as well. There 29 to 31 December is inaccuracy in the data relied upon in as much as 02, 2016 to give example of river Assi in Varanasi. It is stated ss that 50 MLD of different effluent are carried by this river while actually, it is approximately 90 MLD.
4. The multiplicity of Authorities was one of the causes for non-effective implementation of Ganga Project-I and Ganga Project-II plan. It was for the reason that there were number of Authorities stated to prepare, implement and supervise various projects with regard to cleaning of river Ganga but there was lack of coordination, lack of proper monitoring system and also lack of administrative intent to execute the project effectively amongst them.
5. The plan and the projects under the plan should be knowledge driven and not perception driven. Appropriate technology should be adopted upon proper study keeping in view the Indian situation and ground realities in mind rather than adopting foreign or other technologies which may not be beneficial to the Indian system, on long term basis.
6. Use and recycling of the treated sewage or effluents is of paramount consideration as it would result in definite double benefit;
a. It would reduce the load on the river and; b. It would provide usable waste atleast for 6 industrial and agricultural purposes to the needy sectors. If the recycling of treated Item No. effluents is effectively implemented, it would 29 to 31 December considerably reduce extraction of fresh water 02, 2016 from the river or from the ground.
ss
7. Environmental flow of the river should be maintained, if necessary, by reasonable reduction in release of water to the canals and some element of regulation or even prohibition for extraction of groundwater in the entire segment.
8. Effective and definite steps for prevention and control of pollution of river Ganga should be taken. For instance while dealing with tannery industries in Jajmau, it will be appropriate to install three dedicated pipelines, one for Chromium waste, second for tannery effluent and third for domestic sewage. All these three pipelines should be brought to the Chromium Recovery Plant, CETP and STP respectively. Chromium should be recycled as it is a valuable raw material. The industrial effluent upon treatment through CETP and STP should be recycled and not more than 25% of it should be discharged into the river if the need so arises. As a result to these processes large quantity of salt will be recovered which should be stored on a properly prepared land site upon proper segregation of salt, to recover pure salts. The remnant quantity of salt could be put into the river in the rainy season when there is high flow in the river but with complete care 7 and caution. This will help in reducing quantum of Item No. salt at the sites and thus the sites would become 29 to 31 manageable.
December 02, 2016
9. In the functional hierarchy and operating agency ss there is capacity deficiency. As a result there of any system intended to control and prevent pollution does not become effective. There is need to augment the capacity of all agencies involved so that all the data and information available can be transformed into 'technical or implementable knowledge' which can ensure successful implementation of such complex action plan.
10. Another source of high pollution of river Ganga is over utilisation of pesticides and chemical fertilisers, which meet the river through run off from catchment area.
11. The concerted efforts should not be only on the main stretch of the stream but the entire catchment and basin of the river should be equally attended to, if not on priority. There has to be a definite attempt to revive and restore the health of the river.
12. Proper data should be collected before implementation of any project or segment in that behalf.
13. It will be in the larger interest that the data related quality and quantity of water resources including sectoral water utilisation should be in public domain and the suggestions from the public 8 including experts from different fields should be received and properly dealt with. It will be beneficial Item No. to involve local academic institutions in conducting 29 to 31 December all research and implementation of such large 02, 2016 projects.
ss
14. The water extraction is presently in very high proportion in relation to recharge of groundwater. It is therefore necessary to consider various measures for ground water recharge into consideration and implement them accordingly after collection of appropriate data.
Interalia for above reasons, Ganga Plan-I and Ganga Plan-II were futile.
List these matters on 05th December, 2016.
..........................................,CP (Swatanter Kumar) ..........................................,JM (U.D. Salvi) ..........................................,JM (Raghuvendra S. Rathore) ..........................................,EM (Bikram Singh Sajwan) ..........................................,EM (Dr. Ajay A Deshpande) 9