Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

National Green Tribunal

M C Mehta vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2017

Author: Swatanter Kumar

Bench: Swatanter Kumar

                     BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL,
                         PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

                        Original Application No. 200/2014
                              (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
                                        And
                               Appeal No. 63 of 2015
                                        And
                        Original Application No. 127 of 2017
                                        And
                        Original Application No. 133/2017
                             (W.P. (C) No. 200/2013)

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.
                                    And
                 Confederation of Delhi Industries & CETP Societies
                         (An Organisation of CETP Societies)
                                         Vs.
                                   D.P.C.C. & Ors.
                                         And
             J.K. Srivastava Vs. Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.
                                And
      Swami Gyan Swarop Sanand Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.

CORAM :       HON'BLE   MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, CHAIRPERSON
              HON'BLE   DR. JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM, JUDICIAL MEMBER
              HON'BLE   MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
              HON'BLE   MR. BIKRAM SINGH SAJWAN, EXPERT MEMBER
              HON'BLE   MR. RANJAN CHATTERJEE, EXPERT MEMBER


Present Applicant:               Mr. M.C. Mehta, Ms. Katyani and Ms. Mehak Tastogi,
                                 Advs.
                                 Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay with Mr. Salik Shafique, Advs.
                                 for Indian Chemical Council & Jubilant Life Sciences
                                 Mr. B.V. Niren, Adv. for CGWA
          UPPCB:                  Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Dhayani, Advs.,
                                  UPPCB
                                  Mr. I.K. Kapila, Adv. for UP Jal Nigam along with Sh.
                                  Ghanshyam Diwedi, RM, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam
          Respondent Nos. 10 & 11 Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Adv. SPENBIO

Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Adv. for Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Mr. Divya Prakash Pandey, Advs. for MoEF Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. for Uttarakhand UDA Mr. S.A. Zaidi, Adv. for Leather Industries Ms. Asha Basu and Mr. Amit Agarwal, Advs. for Sest Bengl Pollution Control Board Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Adv. and Mr. Dinesh Jindal, LO, Delhi Pollution Control Committee 1 Mr. Rishabh Sharma for Noticee No.9 for Teva API India Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Adv. for Noticee No. 4 to 8

Mr. Rajkumar, Adv. with Mr. Bhupender Kumar, LA for CPCB Ms. Neelam Rathore, Adv. for Association of Textiles Processors & Uttar Pradesh Dyes & Bleachers Associations (Micro & Small) and MLA Group & Chamber of Indian Trade & Industry Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv. for JSPCB Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Advs. for MPPCB Mr. Mukesh Verma and Mr. Bikash Kumar Sinha, Advs. for UPCB Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Adv. MoEF Mr. Sudhir Kulshrestha, Adv.

Ms. Priyanka Sinha, Adv. for State of Jharkhand Mr. Atul Batra and Mr. Kundan Kumar Mishra, Advs for Mother Dairy, Pilakhuwa Unit Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv. for State of UP Ms. Panchajanya Batra Singh, Adv with Mr. R.N. Jindal, Adv. for Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, Adv. with Mr. Dinesh Jindal, LO, Delhi Pollution Control Committee Ms. Sushma Singh, Adv. for R-5 Mr. V.K. Shukla, Adv. with Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, Advs. for State of Madhya Pradesh Mr. Ravi P. Mehrotra and Mr. Abhinav Kr. Malik, Advs. for UPSIDC Ms. Alpana Poddar, Adv. and Mr. Bhupender, LA, Central Pollution Control Board Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. for Mr. Moni Cinmoy, Adv. for DSIIDC along with Mr. Devendra Kumar, JE, DSIIDC Mr. Gautam Singh for Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Advs. for State of Bihar and BSPCB Mr. Ishwer Singh, Adv., National Mission for Clean Ganga with Mr. D.P. Mathuria, Executive Director and Mr. Sundeep, Director, NMCG Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri, Adv. for C.E.C.B. Date and Orders of the Tribunal Remarks Item No. 39 to 44 Mr. R. K. Singh, Zonal Engineer of Kanpur Nagar March Nigam is present in furtherance to order of the Tribunal. He 09, 2017 R has stated that normally from 2nd March upto 15th June, they clean the drains and take out their sludge every year. Last year, more than 35,000 metric tons of sludge was taken out from the drains but the same was not taken to the identified dumping site. It was thrown at the low lying areas or remained on the banks of the drains. For the current year, they have started the work of taking out the waste and sludge from the drains. It is permitted to lay on the banks of the drains and after 3 days, when it is dried 2 Item No. up, it is being taken to the dumping site. The dumping site 39 to 44 has neither been made in terms of the Solid Waste March 09, 2017 Management Rules, 2016 nor in accordance with Municipal R Solid Waste Rules, 2000. The indiscriminate dumping of low areas and even on the site would cause pollution of the ground water and public health impacts because of leachate and other contributing factors. Since last year, they do not have consent to operate from the UPPCB. According to the UPPCB, the consent was granted for the year 2011 and no consent has been granted thereafter. It is further stated that the Nigam did not comply with the conditions imposed under the consent to operate/ authorization.

The officer has seen the photographs filed by the UPPCB and admits that the sludge taken out of the drains is even lying till the middle of the road. The sludge is also lying in front of the houses where people are residing. According to this officer, if the cleaning annually was carried on and the extent of sludge and silt is removed as stated by the officer above, it is not possible that the sewer line of the city would be rendered 70% non-functional. He also states that sewer pipeline was laid down during British times and the same has got damaged at different places and, therefore, there is the leakage in such sewer line. There are 198 drains in the entire city of Kanpur. He has personally not seen or inspected all these 198 drains. Most of the unauthorized colonies or slums do not have drains, exact number thereof is not known. Most of the colonies do not have even drains. It is not known how many drains fall in the unauthorized colonies of the slum. 3 Item No. Mr. R. P. Saluja, General Manager, Kanpur Jal 39 to 44 Sansthan is present before the Tribunal. He states that it is March 09, 2017 the duty of the Jal Sansthan to clean the sewer line in the R city. They do not clean the sewer line every year. Jal Sansthan does not clean the sewer at all, however and whenever there is choking of the sewer line, the cleaning work of that point is carried out. Wherever the drains are intercepted and diverted to the sewer line or to a pumping station at that point screening is done (that is Mesh/ screens are provided). The revenue collection of the Sansthan is less than its expenditure and there is no money left for cleaning the drains. After the information provided by the officers of the various authorities, local authorities and UPPCB, we direct issuance of show cause notice to the

1. Commissioner, Kanpur Nagar Nigam;

2. Managing Direcotr of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam;

3. General Manager of Kanpur Jal Sansthan. To show cause why the Tribunal should not direct imposition of environmental composition against the authorities as well as the officers concerned for causing environmental degradation and pollution for all this time. Furthermore, by adding serious pollutants to river Ganga and also why their prosecution in accordance with law be not directed. Reply to the show cause notice should be filed within two weeks as prayed.

Mr. R. N. Jindal, Scientist 'F', Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest & CC has stated that minimum flow of the Himalayan Rivers must not be less than 2.5% of the 4 75% dependable annual flow expressed in cubic meter per Item No. second. The officer does not know the flow of river Ganga at 39 to 44 any point. Ganga atleast should have 10 cumecs flow in March 09, 2017 segment B which would be minimum desirable. The officer R does not have any idea of actual river flow of river Ganga in Segment B and even at Haridwar. The Learned Counsel appearing for the UPPCB submits that as per the report of WWF, the minimum flow of the river should be 45% of average annual main run off.

List these matters for further arguments on day to day basis w.e.f. 28th March, 2017.

.............................................,CP (Swatanter Kumar) ............................................,JM (Raghuvendra S. Rathore) ............................................,EM (Bikram Singh Sajwan) 5