National Green Tribunal
Compliance Of Municipal Solid Waste ... vs Union Of India &Ors on 15 April, 2019
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item No. 01 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 606/2018
Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016
(State of Madhya Pradesh)
Date of hearing: 15.04.2019
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAWAN SINGH GARBYAL, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s):
For Respondent (s): Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mohanty, Chief Secretary, State of
Madhya Pradesh, Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate
Mr. A.A Mishra, Member Secretary, MPPCB
Mr. R.K Gupta, R.O, MPPCB, Indore, Mr. Neelesh
Dubey, Dy. Director, Urban Development, M.P
Mr. Anupam Rajan, P.S, Environment.
ORDER
1. The issue for consideration is status of compliance of orders of this Tribunal on the subject of solid waste management and allied issues. I. PROCEEDINGS IN ALMITRA PATEL:
2. The matter arose before this Tribunal on transfer of proceedings in Writ Petition No. 888/1996, Almitra H. Patel Vs. Union of India &Ors., by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 02.09.2014.
3. We may note that the issue has been subject matter of consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several proceedings, including in Municipal Council, Ratlam vs. Vardhichand1 and B.L. Wadhera v. Union of 1 (1980) 4 SCC 162 1 India and Ors.2 . It has been categorically laid down that clean environment is fundamental right of citizens under Article 21 and it is for the local bodies as well as the State to ensure that public health is preserved by taking all possible steps. For doing so, financial inability cannot be pleaded.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had appointed Barman Committee which gave report on 06.01.1998 and it was duly accepted. The same led to draft for management of MSW Rules, 1999 which were replaced by 2000 Rules and are now succeeded by 2016 Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court gave directions for proper management of municipal solid waste, inter-alia, vide orders dated 24.08.2000, 04.10.2004, 15.05.2007 and 19.07.2010.
5. All the States were parties before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and draft action plans were prepared which were to be updated, as per revised Rules.
6. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Almitra H. Patel and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.3 that the local authorities constituted for providing services to the citizens are lethargic and insufficient in their functioning which is impermissible. Non-accountability has led to lack of effort on the part of the employees. Domestic garbage and sewage along with poor drainage system in an unplanned manner contribute heavily to the problem of solid waste. The number of slums of multiplied significantly occupying large areas of public land. Promise of free land 2 (1996) 2 SCC 594 3 (2000) 2 SCC 678 2 attracts more land grabbers. Instead of "slum clearance" there is "slum creation" in cities which is further aggravating the problem of domestic waste being strewn in the open. Accordingly, the Court directed that provisions pertaining to sanitation and public health under the DMC Act, 1957, the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 and Cantonments Act, 1994 be complied with, streets and public premises be cleaned daily, statutory authorities levy and recover charges from any person violating laws and ensure scientific disposal of waste, landfill sites be identified keeping in mind requirement of the city for next 20 years and environmental considerations, sites be identified for setting up of compost plants, steps be taken to prevent fresh encroachments and compliance report be submitted within eight weeks.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Almitra H. Patel and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.4 while further reviewing the progress noted the following suggestions for consideration by the State Governments and Central Government and SPCBs/PCCs:-
"1. As a result of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders on 26.7.2004, in Maharashtra the number of authorizations granted for solid waste management (SWM) has increased from 32% to 98%, in Gujarat from 58% to 92% and in M.P. from NIL to 34%. No affidavits at all have been received from the 24 other States/UTs for which CPCB reported NIL or less than 3% authorisations in February 2004. All these States and their SPCBs can study and learn from Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat's successes.
2. All States/UTs and their SPCBs/PCCs have totally ignored the improvement of existing open 4 (2004) 13 SCC 538 3 dumps, due by 31.12.2001, let alone identifying and monitoring the existing sites. Simple steps can be taken immediately at almost no cost by every single ULB to prevent monsoon water percolation through the heaps, which produces highly polluting black run-off(leachate). Waste heaps can be made convex to eliminate standing water, upslope diversion drains can prevent water inflow, downslope diversion drains can capture leachate for recirculation onto the heaps, and disused heaps can be given soil cover for vegetative healing.
3. Lack of funds is no excuse for inaction. Smaller towns in every State should go and learn from Suryapet in A.P. (population 103,000) and Namakkal in T.N. (population 53,000) which have both seen dustbin-free 'zero garbage towns' complying with the MSW Rules since 2003 with no financial input from the State or the Centre, just good management and a sense of commitment.
4. States seems to use the Rules as an excuse to milk funds from the Centre, by making that a precondition for action and inflating waste processing costs 2-3 fold. The Supreme Court Committee recommended 1/3 contribution each from the city, State and Centre. Before seeking 70-80% Centre's contribution, every State should first ensure that each city first spends its own share to immediately make its wastes non- polluting by simple sanitizing/stabilizing, which is always the first step in composting viz. inoculate the waste with cowdung solution or bioculture and placing it in windrows (long heaps) which are turned at least once or twice over a period of 45 to 60 days.
5. Unless each State creates a focused 'solid waste management cell' and rewards its cities for good performance, both of which Maharashtra has done, compliance with the MSW Rules seems to be an illusion.
6. The admitted position is that the MSW Rules have not been complied with even after four years. None of the functionaries have bothered or discharged their duties to ensure compliance. Even existing dumps have not been improved. Thus, deeper thought and urgent and immediate 4 action is necessary to ensure compliance in future."
8. After transfer of proceedings to this Tribunal on 02.09.2014, the matter was taken up from time to time and several directions were issued. Finally vide order dated 22.12.2016, after noticing that the SWM Rules, 2016 had been notified on 08.04.2016 which laid down elaborate mechanism to deal with the solid waste management, the Tribunal directed as follows:
"1. Every State and Union Territory shall enforce and implement the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 in all respects and without any further delay.
2. The directions contained in this judgment shall apply to the entire country. All the State Governments and Union Territories shall be obliged to implement and enforce these directions without any alteration or reservation.
3. All the State Governments and Union Territories shall prepare an action plan in terms of the Rules of 2016 and the directions in this judgment, within four weeks from the date of pronouncement of the judgment. The action plan would relate to the management and disposal of waste in the entire State. The steps are required to be taken in a time bound manner. Establishment and operationalization of the plants for processing and disposal of the waste and selection and specifications of landfill sites which have to be constructed, be prepared and maintained strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2016.
4. The period of six months specified under Rule 6(b), 18, 23 of the Rules of 2016 has already lapsed. All the stakeholders including the Central Government and respective State Governments/UTs have failed to take action in terms thereof within the stipulated period. By way of last opportunity, we direct that the period of six months shall be reckoned w.e.f. 1st January, 2017. There shall be no extension given to any stakeholders for compliance with these provisions any further.5
The period of one year specified under Rule 11(f) 12(a), 15(e), 22(1) and 22(2) has lapsed. The concerned stakeholders have obviously not taken effective steps in discharging their statutory obligations under these provisions. Therefore, we direct that the said period of one year shall commence with effect from 1st July, 2017. For this also, no extension shall be provided.
Any State or Union Territory which now fails to comply with the statutory obligations as afore indicated shall be liable to be proceeded against in accordance with Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Besides that, it would also be liable to pay environmental compensation, as may be imposed by this Tribunal. In addition to this, the senior most officer in-charge in the State Government/Urban Local Body shall be liable to be personally proceeded against for violation of the Rules and orders passed by this Tribunal.
5. The Central Government, State Government, Local Authorities and citizens shall perform their respective obligations/duties as contemplated under the Rules of 2016, now, without any further delay or demur.
6. All the State Governments, its departments and local authorities shall operate in complete co-ordination and cooperation with each other and ensure that the solid waste generated in the State is managed, processed and disposed of strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2016.
7. Wherever a Waste to Energy plant is established for processing of the waste, it shall be ensured that there is mandatory and proper segregation prior to incineration relatable to the quantum of the waste.
8. It shall be mandatory to provide for a buffer zone around plants and landfill sites whether they are geographically integrated or are located separately. The buffer zone necessarily need not be of 500 meters wherever there is a land constraint. The purpose of the buffer zone should be to segregate the plant by means of a green belt from surrounding areas so as to prevent and control pollution, besides, the site of the project should be horticulturally beautified. This should be decided by the authorities concerned and the Rules are silent with regard to extent of buffer zone. However, the Urban Development Manual provides for the same. Hence, 6 we hold that this provision is not mandatory, but is directory.
We make it clear that buffer zone and green belt are essential and their extent would have to be decided on a case to case basis.
9. We direct that the Committees constituted under Rule-
5 would meet at least once in three months and not once in a year as stipulated under the Rules of 2016. The minutes of the meeting shall be placed in the public domain. Directions, on the basis of the minutes, shall be issued immediately after the meeting, to the concerned States, local bodies, departments and Project Proponents.
10. The State Government and the local authorities shall issue directives to all concerned, making it mandatory for the power generation and cement plants within its jurisdiction to buy and use RDF as fuel in their respective plants, wherever such plant is located within a 100 km radius of the facility.
In other words, it will be obligatory on the part of the State, local authorities to create a market for consumption of RDF. It is also for the reason that, even in Waste to Energy plants, Waste-RDF-Energy is a preferred choice.
11. In Waste to Energy plant by direct incineration, absolute segregation shall be mandatory and be part of the terms and conditions of the contract.
12. The tipping fee, wherever payable to the concessionaire/operator of the facility, will not only be relatable to the quantum of waste supplied to the concessionaire/operator but also to the efficient and regular functioning of the plant. Wherever, tipping fee is related to load of the waste, proper computerised weighing machines should be connected to the online system of the concerned departments and local authorities mandatorily.
13. Wherever, the waste is to be collected by the concessionaire/operator of the facility, there it shall be obligatory for him to segregate inert and C&D waste at source/collection point and then transport it in accordance with the Rules of 2016 to the identified sites.7
14. The landfill sites shall be subjected to bio-
stabilisation within six months from the date of pronouncement of the order. The windrows should be turned at regular intervals. At the landfill sites, every effort should be made to prevent leachate and generation of Methane. The stabilized waste should be subjected to composting, which should then be utilized as compost, ready for use as organic manure.
15. Landfills should preferably be used only for depositing of inert waste and rejects. However, if the authorities are compelled to use the landfill for good and valid reasons, then the waste (other than inert) to be deposited at such landfill sites be segregated and handled in terms of Direction 13.
16. The deposited non-biodegradable and inert waste or such waste now brought to land fill sites should be definitely and scientifically segregated and to be used forfilling up of appropriate areas and forconstruction of roads and embankments in all road projects all over the country. To this effect, there should be a specific stipulation in the contract awarding work to concessionaire/operator of the facility.
17. The State Government, Local Authorities, Pollution Control Boards of the respective States, Pollution Control Committees of the UTs and the concerned departments would ensure that they open or cause to be opened in discharge of Extended Producer Responsibility, appropriate number of centers in every colony of every district in the State which would collect or require residents of the locality to deposit the domestic hazardous waste like fluorescent tubes, bulbs, batteries, electronic items, syringe, expired medicines and such other allied items. Hazardous waste, so collected by the centers should be either sent for recycling, wherever possible and the remnant thereof should be transported to the hazardous waste disposal facility.
18. We direct MoEF&CC, and the State Governments to consider and pass appropriate directions in relation to ban on short life PVC and chlorinated plastics as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, not later than six months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.
19. The directions and orders passed in this judgment shall not affect any existing contracts, however, we 8 still direct that the parties to the contract relating to management or disposal of waste should, by mutual consent, bring their performance, rights and liabilities in consonance with this judgment of the Tribunal and the Rules of 2016. However, to all the concessionaire/operators of facility even under process, this judgment and the Rules of 2016 shall completely and comprehensively apply.
20. We specifically direct that there shall be complete prohibition on open burning of waste on lands, including at landfill sites. For each such incident or default, violators including the project proponent, concessionaire, ULB, any person or body responsible for such burning, shall be liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) in case of simple burning, while Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) in case of bulk waste burning. Environmental compensation shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the competent authority in accordance with law.
21. All the local authorities, concessionaire, operator of the facility shall be obliged to display on their respective websites the data in relation to the functioning of the plant and its adherence to the prescribed parameters. This data shall be placed in the public domain and any person would be entitled to approach the authority, if the plant is not operating as per specified parameters.
22. We direct the CPCB and the respective State Boards to conduct survey and research by monitoring the incidents of such waste burning and to submit a report to the Tribunal as to what pollutants are emitted by such illegal and unauthorized burning of waste.
23. That the directions contained in the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of 'Kudrat Sandhu Vs. Govt. of NCT &Ors', O.A. No. 281 of 2016, shall mutatis mutandis apply to this judgment and consequently to all the stakeholders all over the country.
24. That any States/UTs, local authorities, concessionaires, facility operators, any stakeholders, generators of waste and any person who violates or fails to comply with the Rules of 2016 in the entire country and the directions contained in this judgment shall be liable for penal action in accordance with Section-15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 9 and shall also be liable to pay environmental compensation in terms of Sections 15 & 17 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to the extent determined by the Tribunal.
25. That the State Governments/UTs, public authorities, concessionaire/operators shall take all steps to create public awareness about the facilities available, processing of the waste, obligations of the public at large, public authorities, concessionaire and facility operators under the Rules and this judgment. They shall hold program for public awareness for that purpose at regular intervals. This program should be conducted in the local languages of the concerned States/UTs/Districts.
26. We expect all the concerned authorities to take note of the fact that the Rules of 2016 recognize only a landfill site and not dumping site and to take appropriate actions in that behalf.
27. We further direct that the directions contained in this judgment and the obligations contained under the Rules of 2016 should be circulated and published in the local languages.
28. Every Advisory Committee in the State shall also act as a Monitoring Committee for proper implementation of these directions and the Rules of 2016.
29. Copy of this judgment be circulated to all the Chief Secretaries/Advisers of States/UTs by the Registry of the Tribunal. The said authorities are hereby directed to take immediate steps to comply with all the directions contained in this judgment and submit a report of compliance to the Tribunal within one month from the date they receive copy of this judgment."
II. PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS IN PRESENT MATTER:
9. The Tribunal in a review meeting on the administrative side with the CPCB and municipal solid waste management experts, on 23.07.2018 considered the matter in the light of annual report prepared by the CPCB in April 2018 under Rule 24 of the MSW Rules and noticed serious deficiencies. Accordingly, it was decided to take up the issue of 10 execution of judgment dated 22.12.2016 in Mrs. Almitra H. Patel &Anr. Vs. Union of India &Ors (supra), by way of interaction with all the States/UTs through video conferencing. For this purpose, meetings were held on 02.08.2018, 07.08.2018, 08.08.2018, 13.08.2018 and 20.08.2018.
10. At the conclusion of the interaction, the Tribunal declared that the mandatory provision of the Rules and directions should be implemented in a time bound manner. Following specific steps were required to be taken:
i. Action plans were to be submitted by all the States to CPCB latest by 31.10.2018 and executed in the outer deadline of 31.12.2019 which should be overseen by the Principal Secretaries of Urban and Rural Development Departments of the States.
ii. The States should have Monitoring Committees headed by the Secretary, Urban Development Department with the Secretary of Environment Department as Members and CPCB and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) assisting the Committees.
iii. They should have interaction with the local bodies once in two weeks.
iv. Local bodies are to furnish their reports to State Committees twice a month.
v. The State Committees may take a call on technical and policy issues.
vi. Local bodies may have suitable nodal officers. Bigger local bodies may have their own Committees headed by Senior Officers.11
vii. Public involvement may be encouraged and status of the steps taken be put in public domain.
viii. The State Level Committees are to give their reports to the Regional Monitoring Committees on monthly basis.5 ix. Instead of every local body separately floating tenders, the standardized technical specifications be involved and adopted.6 x. Best practices may be adopted, including setting up of Control Rooms where citizens can upload photos of garbage which may be looked into by the specified representatives of local bodies, at local level as well as State level.
xi. It was directed that mechanism be evolved for citizens to receive and give information.
xii. CCTV cameras be installed at dumping sites.
xiii. GPS be installed in garbage collection vans. This may be monitored appropriately.7
11. Performance audit was to be conducted for 500 ULBs with population of 1 lakh and above initially, as suggested by the MoHUA as follows:
Key Parameters/ Description of Parameters/Indicators for Indicators physical evaluation Door to door collection of segregated solid waste from all households including slums and Door to Door informal settlements, commercial, institutional 1 Collection and other non-residential premises.
Transportation in covered vehicles to processing or disposal facilities Segregation of waste by households into Source
2 Biodegradable, non-biodegradable, domestic Segregation hazardous.
5Para 21 6 Para 22 7 Para 23 12 Installation of Twin-bin/ segregated litter bins in commercial & public areas at every 50-100 meters.
Litter Bins & 3 Waste Storage Installation of Waste storage bins in strategic Bins locations across the city, as per requirement (Unless Binless) Elimination of Garbage Vulnerable Points.
Installation of Transfer Stations instead of Transfer secondary storage bins in cities with population 4 Stations above 5 lakhs.
Compartmentalization of vehicles for the collection of different fractions of waste.
Separate Use of GPS in collection and transportation 5 transportation vehicles to be made mandatory at least in cities with population above 5 lakh along with the publication of route map.
All public and commercial areas to have twice daily sweeping, including night 6 Public Sweeping sweeping and residential areas to have daily sweeping.
Waste Separate space for segregation, storage,
Processing decentralised processing of solid waste to be
Wet Waste demarcated
7
Dry Waste Establishing systems for home/decentralised
MRF Facility and centralised composting
Setting up of MRF Facilities.
Setting up common or regional sanitary
landfills by all local bodies for the disposal of Scientific 8 permitted waste under the rules Landfill Systems for the treatment of legacy waste to be established.
Ensure separate storage, collection and 9 C&D Waste transportation of construction and demolition wastes.
Implementation of ban on plastics below <50 10 Plastic Waste microns thickness and single use plastics.
Bulk Waste Bulk waste generators to set up decentralized
11 Generators waste processing facilities as per SWM Rules,
(BWGs) 2016.
Mandatory arrangements have to be made by
12 RDF cement plants to collect and use RDF, from the
RDF plants, located within 200 kms.
Preventing solid Installation of suitable mechanisms such as waste from screen mesh, grill, nets, etc. in water bodies 13 entering into such as nallahs, drains, to arrest solid waste water bodies from entering into water bodies.
13
Waste Generators paying user fee for solid 14 User Fees waste management, as specified in the bye-laws of the local bodies.
Prescribe criteria for levying of spot fine for persons who litters or fails to comply with the Penalty 15 provisions of these rules and delegate powers to provision officers or local bodies to levy spot fines as per the byelaws framed.
Frame bye-laws incorporating the provisions of Notification of 16 MSW Rules, 2016 and ensuring timely Bye Laws implementation.
Citizen
17 Grievance Resolution of complaints on Swachhata App
Redressal within SLA.
Monitoring States/ULBs to update month wise
18
mechanism targets/action plans on the online MIS.
12. The Regional Committees were to be headed either by former High Court Judges or by Senior Retired Officers and Apex Committees by a former Supreme Court Judge.8 Common problems faced and suggestions were to be noted in tabular chart.9The Committees were to function for a period of one year subject to further orders.10
13. The matter was again taken up on 16.01.2019 in light of reports received from some of the Committees, especially from the State of Uttar Pradesh.
14. It was noticed that timeline of two years had expired which was the period prescribed for steps 1 to 7 under Rule 22 and three years is to expire on 08.04.2019 which covers steps upto serial number 10. Since violation of Rules are statutory offences under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and results in deterioration of environment, affecting the life of the citizens, it was noted that the authorities may 8 Paras 18 and 20 9 Para 14 10 Para 18 14 be made accountable for their lapses and required to furnish performance guarantee for compliance or pay damages as had been directed in some of the cases.11
15. The Tribunal noted that solid waste management is of paramount importance for protection of environment, as the statistics paint a dismal picture of the environment in the country. The Tribunal had also referred to proceedings before it, relating to 351 polluted river stretches 102 non-attainment cities in terms of ambient air quality and 100 industrial clusters which are critically polluted as per data available with CPCB. The Tribunal had taken cognizance of such serious environmental issues and required the respective States to prepare time bound action plans and execute the same so as to restore water and air quality, as per prescribed norms.12 11Para 20. Cases referred to in the said para are as follows:
(a). All India Lokadhikar Sangathan vs. Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr, E.A No. 11/2017, Date of Order 16.10.2018;
(b). Sobha Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. O.A. No. 916/2018, Date of Order 14.11.2018;
(c). Threat to life arising out of coal mining in south Garo Hills district v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. O.A No. 110 (THC)/2012, Date of Order 04.01.2019;
(d). Ms. Ankita Sinha vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. O.A. No. 510/2018, Date of Order 30.10.2018,
(e). Sudarsan Das vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. O.A. No. 173/2018, Date of Order 04.09.2018;
(f). Court on its Own Motion vs. State of Karnataka, O.A. No. 125/2017, Date of Order 06.12.2018.
12 Para 21. Cases referred to in the said para are as follows:
O.A. No. 110 (THC)/2012-Threat to life arising out of coal mining in south Garo Hills district v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
O.A. No. 673/2018, News item published in 'The Hindu' authored by Shri Jacob Koshy Titled "More river stretches are now critically polluted: CPCB" dated 20.09.2018: wherein the Tribunal issued directions to prepare and implement Action Plans to rejuvenate and restore the 351 polluted river stretches. Original Application No. 681/2018, News Item Published in "The Times of India' Authored by Shri Vishwa Mohan Titled "NCAP with Multiple timelines to Clear Air in 102 Cities to be released around August 15" dated 08.10.2018: wherein the Tribunal directed Action Plans to be prepared for the 102 non-attained cities to bring the standards of air quality within the prescribed norms.
Original Application No. 1038/2018, News item published in "The Asian Age" Authored by Sanjay Kaw Titled "CPCB to rank industrial units on pollution levels" dated 13.12.2018:
wherein the Tribunal directed preparation of time bound Action Plans to ensure that all 15
16. The Tribunal also noted that there was a need to conduct performance audit of statutory regulators so that they are manned by competent as well as credible persons and there is a regime of their accountability, as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Failure to do so would be disastrous for the health of the citizens and defeat the very purpose of regulatory regime manned to protect the environment. Accordingly it was held that the issues being interconnected, an integral approach was required in the matter for sustainable development. Coordination was required with different authorities of the State, which was not possible without involvement of the Chief Secretaries.13 industrial clusters comply with the parameters laid down in Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
Original Application No. 606/2018, Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 dated 31.08.2018: wherein the Tribunal constituted Apex and Regional Monitoring Committees for effective implementation of MSW Rules, 2016. 13Paras 21 to 25. Cases referred to in the said paras are as follows:
Aryavart Foundation v. M/s Vapi Green Enviro Ltd. & Ors, O.A. No.95/2018. https://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/new_initiatives/presentation-on-CWMI.pdf- India ranks 120th in 122 countries in Water Quality Index as per Niti Ayog Report, https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-andenvironment/india-ranked-no-1-in- pollution-related-deaths-report/article19887858.ece- Most pollution-linked deaths occur in India, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/delhi-world-s-most-polluted-city- mumbaiworse-than-beijing-who/story-m4JFTO63r7x4Ti8ZbHF7mM.html- Delhi's most polluted city, Mumbai worse than Beijing as per WHO; http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/pdf/global_drinking_water_quality_index.pdf- WHO Water Quality Index .
News Item published in 'The Times of India' Authored by Shri. Vishwa Mohan Titled "NCAP with Multiple Timelines to Clear Air in 102 Cities to be released around August 15" O.A. No. 681/2018- http://www.greentribunal.gov.in/DisplayFile.aspx https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/delhis-air-pollution-has-caused-of-death-of-15-000- people-study-1883022.
Sudarsan Das vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. O.A. No. 173/2018 Order dated 04.09.2018 Shailesh Singh vs. Hotel Holiday Regency, Moradabad & Ors. O.A. No. 176/2015, order dated 3.1.2019 Aryavart Foundation v. M/s Vapi Green Enviro Ltd. & Ors O.A. No.95/2018, order dated 11.01.2019.16
17. The Tribunal also considered its experience of administrative interaction held on the subject on 04.12.2018 with the Committees appointed and found that the mechanism had not become as effective as expected.14
18. The Tribunal accordingly modified the mechanism of Committees. For the States, Member Secretaries of the SPCBs were made the Convener of the Committees. Secretaries of Urban Development, Local Bodies, Local Self-Government, Environment, Rural Development Health and representatives of CPCB, wherever CPCB office is existing were to be Members. The Committees were to work for six months or as may be considered necessary.15
19. The Committees constituted under the Rules were to work in tandem with the Committees constituted by the Tribunal. The CPCB was to prepare Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for implementation of Clause J for dealing with the legacy waste. The Collectors were to have monthly meetings, as per Rule 12 and submit reports to State Urban Development Departments, with a copy to State Level Committees.16 14 Para 26.
15Para 28. Cases referred to in the said para are as follows:
See order dated 198.9.2018 of this Tribunal in O.A No. 606/2018 to the effect that the non-official Chairperson will be pa9id consolidated amount equal to basic pay of the post held by the incumbent. A former Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court will be entitled to Rs. 2.50 Lakhs per month. A former Judge of the High Court will be paid Rs. 2.25 Lakhs per month. On same pattern, remuneration may be fixed for any other retired Member.
E.A. No.32/2016 order dated 15.11.2018- Clarifying that while the State may provide the logistics and other facilities, the financial aspects may be taken care of by the State Pollution Control Boards/Committees. The financial aspects will include the remuneration or other incidental expenses which may be increased with a view to effectively execute the directions of this Tribunal. Such expenses may include secretarial assistance, travel as well as cost incurred for any technical assistance. Apart from remuneration, all actual expenses incurred in taking assistance for secretarial working will be reimbursed by concerned PCB as already directed vide order dated 17.12.2018 E.A. No.32/2016, Amresh Singh v. Union of India & Ors. 16 Para 32.
17
20. Every State was to constitute a Special Task Force (STF) in each District with four members - one each nominated by the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Regional Officer of the SPCBs and the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for awareness by involving educational, religious and social organizations, including local Eco-clubs. This was also to apply with regard to awareness in respect of other connected issues i.e. polluted rivers, air pollution, etc. In this regard, reference was made to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court requiring such awareness programmes to be undertaken.17
21. The Tribunal also referred to its order dated 19.12.2018, in Original Application No. 673/2018, for laying down scale of compensation to be recovered from each State/UT in failing to carry out directions of this Tribunal on the issue of preparing action plans for river stretches. Similar pattern was proposed in case of failing to carry out directions in the present case.18 17 Paras 35 and 36. Cases referred to in the said paras are as follows:
O.A. No. 138/2016 order dated 27.08.2018 O.A.No. 673/2018, order dated 20.09.2018 Suo Moto Application No. 290/2017, order dated 24.10.2018 O.A. No. 200/2014 order dated 29.11.2018 (2004)1 SCC 571 (2005)5 SCC 733
18 Para 38. Cases referred to in the said para are as follows:
Threat to life arising out of coal mining in south Garo Hills district v. State of Meghalaya & Ors O.A. No. 110(THC)/2012.
News Item published in "The Hindu" authored by Shri Jacob Koshy Titled "More river stretches are now critically polluted: CPCB (O.A. No. 673/2018) vide order dated
19.12.2018- wherein this Tribunal held that compensation for damage to the environment will be payable by each of the States/ UTs at the rate of Rs. One Crore per month for each of the Priority- I and Priority- II stretches, Rs. 50 lacs per month for stretches in Priority- III and Rs. 25 lacs per month each for Priority- IV and Priority- V stretches. 18
22. The Chief Secretaries/Advisor of all the States and UTs were required to appear in person and be ready on the following specific points:
"a. Status of compliance of SWM Rule, 2016, Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 in their respective areas.
b. Status of functioning of Committees constituted by this order.
c. Status of the Action Plan in compliance vide order dated 20.09.2018 in the News Item published in "The Hindu" authored by Shri Jacob Koshy Titled "More river stretches are now critically polluted: CPCB (Original Application No. 673/2018).
d. Status of functioning of Committees constituted in News Item Published in "The Times of India' Authored by Shri Vishwa Mohan Titled "NCAP with Multiple timelines to Clear Air in 102 Cities to be released around August 15" dated 08.10.2018.
e. Status of Action Plan with regard to identification of polluted industrial clusters in O.A. No. 1038/2018, News item published in "The Asian Age" Authored by Sanjay Kaw Titled "CPCB to rank industrial units on pollution levels" dated 13.12.2018.
f. Status of the work in compliance of the directions passed in O.A. No. 173 of 2018, Sudarsan Das v. State of West Bengal &Ors. Order dated 04.09.2018.
g. Total amount collected from erring industries on the basis of 'Polluter Pays' principle, 'Precautionary principle' and details of utilization of funds collected.
h. Status of the identification and development of Model Cities and Towns in the State in the first phase which can be replicated later for other cities and towns of the State."19
23. It was also directed that they may not nominate other officer for appearance before this Tribunal. However, they may seek change of date, with advance intimation.19
24. Further direction was for the State to display on their respective websites the progress made on the above issues.20Under Rule 14, the CPCB was directed to coordinate with the Committees.21
25. Accordingly, Chief Secretaries/Advisor of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Delhi, Bihar, Odisha, Chandigarh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa and Daman & Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli have already appeared before this Tribunal on 05.03.2019, 06.03.2019, 07.03.2019, 11.03.2019, 15.03.2019, 26.03.2019, 26.03.2019, 02.04.2019, 08.04.2019,09.04.2019, 10.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 respectively and their reports were duly considered. Directions have been given for further course of action and they have been directed to appear in person again with status of compliance and progress after six months. This has become necessary to ensure that environment protection and restoration is given highest priority in view of serious challenge posed by deteriorated environment and large scale violations which are not satisfactorily dealt with by the administrative machinery of the Government. The Tribunal hopes and expects that continued involvement of Chief Secretaries/Advisor will result in improvement of the situation and lead to better protection of quality of air, water and environment and help public health. 19 Paras 40 and 41 20 Para 42 21 Para 45 20 III. PRESENT PROCEEDINGS:
26. In pursuance of above, Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mohanty, Chief Secretary, State of Madhya Pradeshis present in person.
27. A status report has been submitted today i.e. 12.04.2019 on behalf of State of Madhya Pradesh indicating status of compliance of order dated 16.01.2019. The compliance report indicates some of the steps taken for solid waste management. Status of compliance of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, polluted river stretches, polluted industrial clusters, air polluted cities and illegal mining have also been mentioned.
28. Some of the achievements in the State of Madhya Pradesh as mentioned in the status report are as follows:
The State's IEC-BCC Campaigns have targeted all the key stakeholders including Resident Welfare Associations (RWA), Educational Institutions, Businesses, Community Leaders, Sanitation Staff, Bulk Waste Generators, etc. The State has conducted 9 State-wide Campaigns in the year 2018. The State is also taking sincere efforts to sensitize the students by conducting seminars, workshops and campaigns in every district covering approximately 25,000 schools of the State. The State intends to create a healthy competition among the schools by declaring 6 schools in every district as "Green Schools" on the basis of cleanliness maintained in the schools, waste management, 21 water conservation techniques, plantation done, making and using eco-friendly items, reusing the old text books etc. A State level award has also been instituted for 3 best environment friendly schools under primary, middle and higher secondary categories respectively.
"Eco-club" has been constituted in 250 schools of every district i.e. 13,000 schools in the State. Environment related activities are conducted throughout the year in these schools with the help of the eco-clubs. The eco-clubs also act as the resource school for other schools in their vicinity.
100% door to door collection of the waste has increases from 274 ULBs in August 2018 to 364 ULBs.
Out of 344 ULBs (population <1.00 Lakh), 1779 geo-tagged waste processing facilities (Material Recovery and Composting facilities) are operational in 145 ULBs.
Geo-tagged composting facilities are operational in 145 ULBs. In rest of the ULBs, composting facilities are being improved. Home composting is being done in 148716 households. Madhya Pradesh is declared as 100% Open Defecation Free (ODF) in urban areas with third party inspection by Quality Council of India. 44 cities of the State have been declared as ODF+ and 14 cities are declared as ODF++ by Government of India. In order to implement the ban on the manufacturing of plastic carry bags, all 21 plastic carry bag manufacturing units have been closed in the State.
22
The RRC has prepared the Action Plans for the Priority I and Priority II polluted river stretches after taking into account the Model Action Plan for Hindon River prepared by CPCB. That, the Action Plans of Non-attainment cities of Madhya Pradesh namely, Bhopal, Dewas, Indore, Sagar, Ujjain and Gwalior have been sent to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on 24.12.2018.
Presently 11 Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations (CAAQMS) are operating in the State. 05 of these stations have been established by the MPPCB namely, Mandideep, Pitampur, Dewas, Ujjain and Singrauli. On persuasion by MPPCB, the private companies have installed CAAQMS stations in Damoh, Indore, Satna, Rewa, Ratlam, Mahiyar under CSR (corporate social responsibility) activities.
29. From the compliance report furnished by the Chief Secretary, inspite of several steps taken, further action is required for ensuring sustainable development.
30. According to a newspaper article in the Times of India22, excessive and rampant sand mining has threatened the very existence of Ken river in Bundelkhand region of Madhya Pradesh. After declining level of water in the river, the mafia has turned the water flow and built temporary bridge- almost 20 meters long- across the river to facilitate mining and 22https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/madhya-pradesh-ken-river-faces-threat- from-sand-mafia/articleshow/68618557.cms 23 transportation of the mineral23. The article states that "the district administration broke twice a temporary bridge constructed by the mafia on a shallow portion of the river in Panna. Now it has started a 24X7 vigil to ensure that the bridge is not built again. The bridge was demolished was last week on March 19 near Bira sand mine in Ajaygarh tehsil."24
31. As per report, presently, a glimpse of Narmada reiterates collective failure to maintain yet another river, as industrial and human waste has wreaked havoc in the river. Originating in Amarkantak in Madhya Pradesh, the Narmada is India's third longest river and flows through Madhya Pradesh for more than 1,000 kilometres, making it the lifeline of the state's water resources. Increased urbanization and industrialization across the river has deteriorated the river's water quality to 'C' category of the Bureau of Indian Standards.' Untreated waste and sewage from 52 cities in Madhya Pradesh is impacting the river25. Hoshangabad in particular has been responsible for much of Narmada's problems, as many paper mills in the area have been known to discharge waste into the river. Disposal of untreated sewage for years at Hoshangabad rendered the river water unfit for consumption, usage and destroyed the aquatic life present in the river near that area. In 2016, water samples from four different points of the river were 23https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/madhya-pradesh-ken-river-faces-threat- from-sand-mafia/articleshowprint/68618557.cms 24https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/madhya-pradesh-ken-river-faces-threat- from-sand-mafia/articleshow/68618557.cms 25https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/the-once-mighty-narmada-in-madhya-pradesh-is-battling- for-survival-10658/ 24 tested by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) and the river water was rendered unfit for usage26.
32. As reported in an article, a report by the World Resources Institute (WRI) has categorised the Narmada as one of six major river basins in the world facing an existential crisis. The report says that in 2017 the river faced water crisis and as a result, the Gujarat government had to stop using water from the Sardar Sarovar dam for irrigation. The International Water Management Institute points out that the scarcity of water is due to the increasing dependency on the Narmada basin27.
33. Madhya Pradesh has been ranked ninth in the list of top-10 states in India with highest death rate attributable to air pollution in people younger than 70 years. A study28 says that 50% of the deaths in the state in this category is linked to air pollution29.
34. The status report filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh before this Tribunal shows that the legacy waste has been removed from 187.9 acres of land which is about 45.7% of the total area covered by legacy waste. The remaining legacy waste has yet to be done. We may specially note that legacy waste at Khanpur dump in Bhopal continues 26https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/the-once-mighty-narmada-in-madhya-pradesh-is-battling- for-survival-10658/ 27https://www.firstpost.com/india/drying-rivers-of-madhya-pradesh-narmada-on-the-cusp-of- extinction-with-six-big-dams-sand-mining-pollution-threatening-its-survival-6221291.html 28The study, called the India State-Level Disease Burden Initiative, was published in The Lancet Planetary Health journal and released on December 6. It was conducted by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), in collaboration with the ministry of health and family welfare.
https://dbpost.com/with-50-air-pollution-related-deaths-of-people-under-70-mp-is-9th-in- india/ 29https://dbpost.com/with-50-air-pollution-related-deaths-of-people-under-70-mp-is-9th-in- india/ 25 to be an issue of concern which needs to be tackled expeditiously. The Chief Secretary states that the entire exercise is likely to be completed within one year and reports will be given to this Tribunal quarterly.
35. There are three polluted river stretches in Priority-I, namely, River Chambal (from Nagda to Rampura), River Khan (from Kabit Khedi to Khajrana), River Kshipra (from Siddhawat to Trivenisangam) and one polluted river stretch in Priority-II namely, River Betwa (from Mandideep to Vidisha). The action proposed indicates gap in effluent generation and treatment. Effluent is sewage as well as industrial waste. The timeline for bridging the gap is proposed up to December 2022. This issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal vide order dated 08.04.2019 in O.A No. 673/2018, News item published in "The Hindu"authored by Shri Jacob Koshy titled "More river stretches are now critically polluted : CPCB. The Tribunal noted that water pollution results in threat to food safety if such water is used for irrigation. Consuming polluted water out of compulsion or ignorance affects human health, apart from aquatic flora and fauna, animals - wild and domestic who may consume such water. There is need to have regular hygiene survey with reference to pathogenic organisms. Biological health of the rivers is important. Bio-diversity needs to be protected. Bio-mapping of rivers and setting biological goals/criteria is part of River Rejuvenation Programmes. The Tribunal directed launching of nationwide programme on biodiversity and indexing of the rivers to assess the efficacy of river cleaning programme and also constituted a Central Monitoring Committee. Thus, timelines proposed are required 26 to the appropriately reduced apart from taking necessary preventive and remedial actions against the polluters.
36. It is made clear that discharge of untreated effluents being a criminal offence, no permission can be granted to continue the same nor can the State refrain from taking punitive action as per law of the land. The State is under a duty as per the Public Trust Doctrine to protect the environment and proceed against violators taking preventive as well as remedial measures. Polluting activity must be directed to be stopped forthwith till the remedial measures are taken and steps must be taken to recover the cost of damage caused on realistic basis which should be deterrent so that pollution is not a profitable activity and the victim is duly rehabilitated and environment degradation is restored. Consideration of employment or economic gain has no relevance to allow an activity which is an offence under the law of the land. Progress in this aspect is also expected to be furnished by the Chief Secretary quarterly.
37. During interaction with the Chief Secretary, we also noted steps necessary to maintain e-flow in Chambal River for protection of Gharial Sanctuary and Dolphins. It was specifically noted that pollution from Grasim industry was required to be prevented and controlled.
38. We discussed with the Chief Secretary about need for having an effective monitoring cell attached to the office of the Chief Secretary with experts in environment and related issues to assess the Chief Secretary. 27
39. Though Indore is declared to be cleanest city on the subject of Solid Waste Management, it is facing the problem of air and water pollution. We have noted that river Khan passing through Indore is not meeting the norms of water quality. Indore is declared to be non-attainment city in terms of air quality. The State of Madhya Pradesh has five non- attainment cities namely Mandideep, Pitampur, Dewas, Ujjain and Singrauli. The action proposed must be expeditiously completed in the outer limit of one year and quarterly reports furnished to this Tribunal.
40. The State of Madhya Pradesh has six polluted industrial areas namely Indore, Dewas, Nagda-Ratlam, Pithampur, mandideep and Gwalior. On this aspect also, remedial action has to be completed within outer limit of one year and furnish quarterly report to this Tribunal. Necessary action must be taken against the identified polluting industries.
41. On the subject of sand mining, the Rules have been framed to regulate sand mining. The Tribunal has received a report in O.A No. 456/2018, Nityanand Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. to the effect that at a location visited by the Committee on the bank of Son River, illegal sand mining was reported to be to the extent of Rs. 1.2 crores per night which comes to around Rs. 438 crores per year. The Tribunal has noted in order dated 05.04.2019 in O.A No. 360/2015, National Green Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) and other connected matters that action is required to be taken in the State of Madhya Pradesh to check illegal sand mining and also to recover from 28 such miners not only full value of illegal mining but also cost of restoration of environment as well as ecological services foregone forever30. The Tribunal also noted that if a vehicle is involved, the same must be ceased and confiscated and not released without payment of atleast 50% of the showroom value of such vehicle. Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016 as may be modified are required to be followed. The quarterly report is also required to be furnished in this regard.
42. These facts have been brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary so that necessary action is considered and taken.
43. Some of the issues relating to the protection of environment in the State of Madhya Pradesh have been considered by this Tribunal in its orders.31 30 "56. Similar criteria may have to be taken into account for arriving at an approximate scale of compensation. The compensation is to include not only the full value of the illegally mined material but also cost of restoration of environment as well as cost of ecological services foregone forever. It should be deterrent so as not to render such illegal activity profitable. In Sudarsan Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (Supra), it was held that full value of the material, the cost of restoration and the NPV should form part of the compensation to be recovered. There has also to be action against the polluters and the erring officers. The vehicles or any other equipment used for illegal mining are required to be confiscated and to be released only on payment of atleast 50% of the showroom value as laid down in Original Application No.110(THC)/2012, Threat to life arising out of coal mining in South Garo Hills District v. State of Meghalaya& Ors. This scale can then apply for all States, as far as possible."
31(a). Orders dated 17.08.2018 in Kuldeep Singh Parihar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors., O.A. No. 440/2018.
(b). Order dated 19.12.2018 in Umesh Nex vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, O.A. No. 854/2018.
(c). Order dated 21.02.2019 in Residents of Gram Panchayat Varahiya vs. State of M.P., O.A. No. 739/2018.
(d). Order dated 03.01.2019 in Ashwani Kumar Dubey vs. Union of India &Ors., O.A. No. 164/2018 with E.A. No. 22/2018 in O.A. No. 276/2013.
(e). Order dated 26.10.2018 in Gorelal Tamrakar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors, O.A. No. 784/2018.
(f). Order dated 14.03.2019 in Resident of Banjali Niwasi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, O.A. No. 790/2018.
(g). Order dated 09.01.2019 in Manohar Manapure vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, O.A. No. 1059/2018.
29
44. As already noted, in O.A. No. 456/2018, Nityanand Mishra v. State of M.P. & Ors., in a report submitted to this Tribunal, it is stated as follows:
" 9. Sand mining is directly affecting basking and nesting habitats of species in SGS. Mining of sand from the river bed and river banks will negatively alter the river morphology, will increase sedimentation and turbidity and also disrupt the lateral connectivity within the river. Studies have already shown condition of Son River to be at a critical level with severely compromised river flows. Sand mining will only result in compounding what is an already sub-optimal riverine habitat. Any further degradation of this habitat will potentially make Son River uninhabitable for some of the most threatened fauna in the country. The data from offence registers of SGS as depicted in table 1 does indicate that there has been an increase in the number of cases with respect to the illegal sand mining in the sanctuary area. The information is about cases that were caught and processed by the Forest Department. There are many cases that go unnoticed due to inadequate patrolling as everyone informs that one truck generates illegal revenue of Rs. 12,000 and per night 1000 trucks generate illegal revenue of Rs. 1,20,00,000."
45. We find that scales of compensation recovered from polluters is not adequate. The same has to be deterrent and adequate to meet cost required for restoration of environment. The State of Madhya Pradesh needs to estimate the cost of restoring the damages and recover compensation from the polluters which may be adequate for restoration/restitution. Policy to proceed against polluters has to be stern having regard to impact of pollution of life and health as well as ecology.
(h). Order dated 08.10.2018 in Anil Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors., O.A. No. 703/2018.
(i). Order dated 21.12.2018 in Sachin Sahu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
(j). Order dated 19.12.2018 in Adity Daweshwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, O.A. No. 881/2018.
(k). Order dated 15.02.2019 in Pathranand vs. State of M.P. & Ors., O.A. No. 167/2018. 30
46. It has also been brought to the notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered the disposal of the toxic waste generated by the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal lying at the Pithampur waste treatment storage and disposal facility (TSDF) in Dhar District. The facility, located 200 km from Bhopal, is yet to be made operational. Hon'ble Supreme Court had asked the Centre government to submit a plan for disposing the hazardous waste. The State has been directed to continue to execute the project for disposal of waste and ensure completion of the same as early as possible.32 Status of progress in the matter may be included in the report furnished to the Tribunal.
47. On behalf of CPCB, some data has been furnished in respect of State of Madhya Pradesh and the same is summarized as under:-
1 Solid Waste Number of towns to be covered : 383 Management Number of Authorization :1 Local Bodies : 383 Waste Generation : 7212 TPD Collected : 6537 TPD Treated : 2272TPD Landfilling : 4264 TPD No. of Dumpsites : 377 Waste Processing: Composting(31 Towns), Vermi-composting(15 Towns), RDF(Ujjain) 2 Plastic Waste Generation : 61037 TPA Waste Number of registered Management manufacturing units : 47 Number of unregistered units : 20 3 Biomedical No of Hospitals : 6362 Waste Authorizations granted : 3250 Waste Generation : 14824 Kg/d Treatment : 13569 Kg/d Common Bio-medical waste Treatment Facilities : 13 32Order dated 18.08.2018 in WP (C) No. 657/1995 Research Foundation for Science v. UoI & Ors.
31 No. of Captive Facilities : 1 4 Polluted P(I)- 3 Chambal, Khan, Kshipra River P(II)-1 Betwa Stretches P(III)-1Sone P(IV)-3 Gohad, Kolad, Tapi, P(V)- 14 Bichia, Chamla, Choupan, Kalisot, Kanhan, Katni, Kunda, Malei, Mandakini, Newaj, Parvati, Simrar, Tons, Wainganga Total 22 5 Air Quality Bhopal, Devas, Indoor, Sagar, Ujjain, Gwalior
Management Action plan have been approved by CPCB.
6 Industrial Indoor, Devas, Gwalior, Mandideep, Nagdar-
Clusters ratlam, Pithampura
7 ETP, CETP, ETPs
STPs No. of industries which require ETP : 979
No. of industries having functional ETP: 963 No. of industries complying : 960 No. of industries non-complying : 3 STPs No. of STPs : 16 No. of STPs complying : 9 No. of STPs non-complying: 7 CETPs No. of CETPs : 2 No. of CETPs Complying: 2
48. Needless to say that improvement in environment is not only inalienable duty of the State, but is also necessary for sustainable development which is essential for the health and well-being of citizens as well as for intergenerational equity. These principles require that all human activities should be conducted in such a way that the rights of future generations to access clean air and potable water are not taken away. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that water is being polluted because of discharge of untreated sewage and effluents. Air pollution is result of failure to manage solid waste and to prevent other causes leading to air pollution. There are also other issues like deterioration in groundwater level, damage to forests and wild life, 32 unscientific and uncontrolled sand mining etc. Unsatisfactory implementation of law is clear from the fact that inspite of severe damage, there is no report of any convictions being recorded against the polluters, nor adequate compensation has been recovered for damage caused to the environment. Steps for community involvement are not adequate. There is reluctance even to declare some major cities as fully compliant with the environment norms. The authorities have not been able to evolve simplified and standard procedure for preparing project reports and giving of contracts. There is no satisfactory plan for reuse of the treated water or use of treated sewage or waste and for segregation and collection of solid waste, for managing the legacy waste or other wastes, etc.
49. The presence of Chief Secretary before this Tribunal was directed with an expectation that there will be realization of seriousness at the highest level which may percolate in the administration. This may require effective institutional monitoring mechanism and training of all the authorities charged with the duty of overseeing protection of environment and effective schemes for community involvement at every level.
IV. DIRECTIONS:
50. In view of above, after discussion with the Chief Secretary, following further directions are issued:
i. Apart from cities and towns declared as model cities and towns, at least three Villages in every District of the State may 33 be identified within two weeks and made fully compliant in respect of environmental norms within six months. Remaining State may be made fully compliant within one year.
ii. A quarterly report be furnished by the Chief Secretary, every three months. First such report shall be furnished by July 20, 2019.
iii. The Chief Secretary may personally monitor the progress, atleast once in a month, with all the District Magistrates.
iv. The District Magistrates or other Officers may be imparted requisite training.
v. The District Magistrates may monitor the status of compliance of environmental norms, atleast once in two weeks.
vi. Performance audit of functioning of all regulatory bodies may be got conducted and remedial measures be taken, within six months.
vii. Revise approach and policy for assessment and recovery of compensation for damage to environment and other action against polluters.
viii. The Chief Secretary may remain present in person before the Tribunal with the status of compliance in respect of various issues mentioned in para 22 as well as any other issues discussed in the above order on 22.10.2019.
51. It is made clear that Chief Secretary may not delegate the above function and the further requirement of appearance before this Tribunal to anyone else. However, it will be open to him to change the date, by 34 advance intimation by e-mail at [email protected] to adjust their convenience.
52. The issue of recovery of damages from the States for their failure to comply with the environmental norms, including the statutory rules and orders of this Tribunal, will be considered will be considered later. The Tribunal may also consider the requirement of performance guarantee of a particular amount in case progress achieved is not found to be satisfactory.
53. Vide order dated 05.03.2019, dealing with State of Himachal Pradesh, it has been directed that the Apex Committee is to conclude its proceedings by 30.04.2019 and furnish its final report. Thereafter, monitoring at apex level can be done by MoEF&CC and CPCB in terms of Rules 5 and 14 of the SWM Rules respectively and direction of this Tribunal vide order dated 22.12.2016 [Para 43(9)]. However, the State Level Committees as directed by the Tribunal headed by retired Judges and the Chief Secretaries will continue including the State and District Level Committees.
54. Any other Committee or regulatory body will work in tandem with the above mechanism.
Put up the report which may be received on 24.07.2019.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP 35 R.S. Rathore, JM Dr. S.S. Garbyal, EM April 12, 2019 Original Application No. 606/2018 AK 36