National Green Tribunal
M/S Janta Dairy Firm vs State Of Mp Through Principal Secretary on 6 July, 2020
Item Nos. 02 to 16 and19 & 20 (Through VC-Bhopal)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No.105/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.107/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.108/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.109/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.110/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.111/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.112/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.113/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.114/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.117/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.118/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.119/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.120/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.121/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.122/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.125/2017(CZ)
With
Original Application No.126/2017(CZ)
Nagarik Upbhokta Margdarshan Manch Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Purushottam Das Yadav Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
1
With
Akhtar Dairy Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Amar Nath Yadav Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Mahesh Ojha Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Wahid Dairy Farm Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
M/s. Janta Dairy Firm Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Janakraj Khatri Dairy Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Gulshan Dairy Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Munna Dairy Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Vikram Singh Applicant(s)
Versus
2
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Jagdev Singh Thakur Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Hargovind Yadav Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Pawan Kumar Rajak Applicant(s)
Versus
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation
Jablapur & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Jabalpur Pashupalak Evam Dugdha
Utpadak Khushan Mahasang Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Revakhand Daghdha Utpadak
Margdarshak Manch Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Bujan Yadav Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 06.07.2020
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SIDDHANTA DAS, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s) Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastav, Advocate
3
Mr. Yadvendra Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Pulkit Godha, Advocate
Mr. Nitin Pnadit, Advocate
Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Advocate
ORDER
1. By way of filing these applications one set of applicant has raised the issue of solid waste generated through the dairies and thrown in the open streets and discharging the untreated water in the rivers or in the municipal drain causing serious threat to the health of citizen and are also responsible for traffic congestion and accidents. It is stated that cow dung and liquid waste which is in open place have become the breeding centre for mosquitoes and other creatures responsible for most of the epidemic disease. Apart from this, in rainy seasons cow dungs are also responsible for the accidents in the city. Due to inaction on the part of the municipal corporation, it is prayed to remove the dairies or to regulate in accordance with the rules and to take adequate measures to provide clean drinking water. The citizens of Jabalpur city are suffering from various diseases some are which of fatal in nature. It is alleged that large number of people are suffering due to Gastrointestinal disease, Malaria, Phara- Malaria, Cholera, Jaundice and Viral Fever. It is alleged that the citizens of the city have a right to live in clean, healthy, un-polluted and hygiene atmosphere and also to get pure drinking water. The applicant has made a request to direct the municipal corporation and respondents to remove all dairies from the limits of municipal corporation of Jabalpur and to do the necessary action to regulate the dairies.
2. There is second set of applicants who has made a request to stay the coercive actions which are being taken by the respondent no.2 and demolishing the sheds or temporary construction. Further, in one of the application, it has been reported that the SDO concerned has passed the order that the dairy owner should obtain necessary permission from the 4 competent authority and install ETP failing which, the dairies will be removed.
3. In one of the application, it has been prayed that directions be issued to the respondent no.2 to ensure that no occupier or operator will violate the mandatory provisions of solid waste and liquid waste rules and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1981. The discharge of untreated water into the river Sonar has also been raised in one of the application and it has been prayed to take coercive step to protect the river. Through reading all the applications, three types of issues are raised:-
1. The compliance of the Solid Waste Management Rules and Liquid Waste Management Rules and to maintain the ambient air quality in the city;
2. Not to demolish the structure which is used by the dairy owners and no coercive steps should be taken to demolish the structures;
3. That the river Sonar should be saved from pollution and the respondents should be directed not to discharge any untreated water into the river Sonar.
4. Now we should take issue no.1 with regard to solid waste and liquid waste which is raised in these applications. The Learned Counsel Sh. Om Shankar Shrivastav appearing for MoEF & CC has stated that the issue has been raised in the original application no. 46/2018, Nuggehalli Jayasimha V. Government of NCT of Delhi and the Principal Bench of this Tribunal dealt this matter (decided on 20.05.2020) directed and observed as follows:-
"2. The matter has been dealt with earlier by this Tribunal and directions have been issued from time to time with a view to enforce the statutory mandate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for compliance of environmental norms. Against the order of the 5 Tribunal dated 08.07.2019, to which reference will be made in the later part of this order, Civil Appeal No. 7285/2019 filed by the SDMC was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As earlier noted, the issue was also dealt with by the Delhi High Court in Common Cause v. UOI, (2007 SCC Online (Del) 863), wherein Municipal Corporation of Delhi was directed to formulate a licensing policy under Section 417 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. While issuing such direction, the High Court noticed unsatisfactory state of affairs. The High Court observed that the dairies need to be relocated on account of hazard of stray cattle on the roads and trauma faced by the cattle in the cities on account of traffic. Reference was also made to the filth, squalor and outbreak of diseases. As a short-term measure, preventive steps were required for hygiene and protection of environment. Our attention has been drawn to a policy framed by the MCD on 17.07.2010 prohibiting keeping of cattle in any premises without license.
Authorized dairy areas were specified and standards and measures were also specified. Reference has also been made to the report of an Expert Committee constituted by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research, Government of India, dated 01.11.2016 under the Chairmanship of Dr. Arjava Sharma, Director, ICAR-
NBAGR, Karnal. The report dealt with sustainable management of unproductive cattle. The report specifies land requirement, feeding requirement, labour requirement and health management.
3.Vide order dated 01.04.2019, the Tribunal considered the allegation of air, water and soil pollution by the dairy industries in Delhi. It was alleged that solid and liquid waste releasing gaseous emissions was generated and dumped by the dairies in Delhi into the drains, meeting the river Yamuna, resulting contamination of river Yamuna. The waste clogged the drainage system which was becoming breeding ground for mosquitoes and other inspects and 6 thus creating health hazard. Waste generated was also resulting in discharge of Ammonia and Nitrogen oxides in the air and nitrate in soil and ground water. The odour from dairies negatively impacted the air quality. Ammonia wafted into the air from manure lagoons.
Gases known as volatile organic compounds were created by the huge piles of feed. The foul smell from the dairy caused migraine, severe headache and people had no option but to inhale the impure/foul air present in the atmosphere.In the light of inspection reports dated 04.12.2015 and 15.12.2015, prepared by the Animal Welfare Board of India, it was noted that there was rampant use of Schedule H drugs, oxytocin injections, syringes, plastic bottles and other veterinary drugs etc. which are disposed of improperly and in unscientific manner, in violation of Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016. The dairies were not following waste management practices. There was also violation of Food Safety and Standards (Licence and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011.
4. The Tribunal also noted various articles on the subject1 which highlight adverse consequences on the environment due to illegal and unscientific dairy activities. It was also observed that there was violation of various provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
5. After quoting the observation from the report of the Committee, the stand of the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) that it was not concerned with the subject despite the violation being clearly acknowledged was rejected in view of statutory provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, (Water Act), the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Air Act) 1"Delhiis major contributorof population in Yamuna" published in "The Hindu" dated17.04.2007, "Feeding on plastic poses high risk to lives, output of stray cattle" published in "Indian Today"dated 08.05.2017, "Serious farm population breaches rise in UK-and many go unprosecuted"published in "Guardian" dated 21.05.2017, "How growth in Dairy is affecting the environment" published in "The New York Times" dated01.05.20015 and "Stray cows clog South Delhi roads" published in"The Times of India" dated 05.08.2012 and research papers titled"Nitrogen pollution by dairy cows and its mitigation by dietary manipulation", "Impact of Dairy Effluent on Environment-A Environmental Science and Engineering (Subseries: Environmental Science)", apart from other documents and photographs.7
and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and rules framed thereunder. It was noted that though various authorities of the Delhi Government were parties and represented by Counsel, no authority came forward to take the responsibility and none of the Counsel made any suggestion for enforcement of law. In this background, the Tribunal by order dated 01.04.2019 directed the Chief Secretary of Delhi to call a meeting of all concerned and fix their accountability. The Tribunal also noted that the DPCC had failed to perform its statutory duties under the Water Act, the Air Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act) in preventing polluting activities, prosecuting the polluters and recovering compensation for restoration of the environment from the polluters. The Tribunal also required DPCC, South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) and North Delhi Municipal Corporation (North DMC) to pay sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs each as an interim compensation and furnish a performance guarantee of Rs. 10 Lakhs each with the Central Pollution Control Board for taking necessary steps within three months for restoration of the environment. The amount could be recovered from the erring officer and polluters. The Chief Secretary, Delhi was to furnish an action taken report.
6. The matter was further reviewed on 08.07.2019 in the light of the report of the DPCC dated 03.07.2019. Commenting on the said report, this Tribunal found that DPCC was trying to avoid responsibility by taking untenable plea that only Municipal Corporations or other Departments were to monitor the pollution caused by the dairies. Accordingly, DPCC was directed to enforce its statutory obligation of closing polluting activities, prosecute the polluters and recover compensation on 'Polluter Pays' principle. The Tribunal also directed CPCB to undertake a study and lay down appropriate guidelines for management and monitoring of environmental norms by dairies throughout 8 country. The observations of the Tribunal are reproduced for ready reference:
"1 to 6 xxx xxx xxx
7. We find that in spite of observations in the earlier order of this Tribunal as well as repeated orders in large number of cases, the DPCC seems to be avoiding its statutory responsibilities under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and to cover up their inaction, is passing the order of imposition of fines on other statutory bodies, without any jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the Delhi Government as well as DPCC have not been able to show any legal authority for doing so. While the DPCC may take action on 'Polluter Pays' principle against polluting activities of any statutory body, it has no authority to recover compensation for alleged inaction by such statutory authorities. Such authorities are not authorized to enforce the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 or Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 which DPCC itself has to enforce. Even if they have overlapping powers under other statute, the DPCC cannot avoid its obligation under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It is undisputed that the dairies are operating in violation of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as already noted in the order of this Tribunal dated 01.04.2019. The DPCC is required to ensure that the polluting activities, without consent to operate, are stopped by way of prohibitory order, prosecution and recovery of compensation which has not been done. Just as local bodies cannot fine DPCC for its utter failure, DPCC also cannot shift its onus and responsibility to local bodies and absolve from its responsibility. It has to proceed against polluters which it is avoiding to do.
8. We find that as per the circular dated 05.03.2016 issued by the MoEF&CC, the dairy industries fall under the 'Orange' category industries. Consent to operate is necessary under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Under the Environment (Protection) Rules, Schedule-I, read with Rule-3, lays down the norms for discharge by various activities or operations. Entry 56 deals with 'dairies' (industrial units) and provides for standards of effluents and violation of such standards.
9. Faced with the above, learned Counsel for the DPCC has undertaken to withdraw the notices issued to other statutory authorities and not to indulge in such illegal activities in future.
10. We find that the action of the DPCC is inadequate. Under Section 15 of the NGT Act, 2010, this Tribunal has to deal with enforcement of statutes mentioned in 9 Schedule-I which include Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Such violations may also be overlapping with the other statutory violations for which concerned statutory authorities have to take action on that ground. The local bodies have the responsibilities under the SWM Rules, 20162 but on that ground, the DPCC cannot avoid its responsibility. Local bodies must perform their statutory duties.
11. In view of above, while disapproving the above illegal action of DPCC as well as its inaction, we expect the DPCC now to enforce its concerned statutory obligations by closing polluting activities, prosecuting the polluters and recovering compensation from the polluters in accordance with law and to furnish a further report to this Tribunal by e-mail at judicial- [email protected] before the next date.
12. We may note that livestock is a major source of methane emissions and studies on the subject show that the problem in India is severe. Results of a recent study 3show that the Indian livestock emitted 15.3 million tonnes of methane in 20124. Enteric methane emission from Indian livestock contributed 15.1% of total global enteric methane emission. In India, contribution of enteric methane was 91.8% of the total GHG emissions, followed by manure methane (7.04%) and manure Nitrous Oxide (1.15%) in the year 20105. The livestock sector in India has the potential to cause surface temperatures to surge up to 0.69 millikelvin over 20 year time period which is roughly 14 per cent of the total increase caused by the global livestock sector. Methane has a warming potential 20 times higher than carbon dioxide. Globally, livestock sector generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.6While the dairy industry is covered by 'Orange category' under the circular dated 05.03.2016 issued by the MoEF&CC, no such guidelines are said to be existing for management and rearing of livestock. Needless to say that such activity have potential of causing air and water pollution as already noted in the context of Delhi. Accordingly, instead of limiting the scope of remedying the compliance of environment norms by dairies to Delhi, we consider it necessary to expand the same for the whole country. Let the CPCB undertake a study in the matter and lay down appropriate guidelines for management and monitoring of environmental norms by the dairies throughout India and furnish a report in the matter by e-mail at judicial- [email protected] the next date. The local bodies in all 2See Rule 3(46) read with Rule 15 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. 3 Study carried out by the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi and the DeenbandhuChhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, Climate change impact of livestock CH4 emission in India: Global Temperature change Potential (GTP) and surface temperature response, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651317305766, Volume 147, January 2018, Pages 516-522.
4 Id.
5https://www.ajas.info/journal/view.php?number=4850. 6http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html 10 the States/ UTs be required to file inventory of dairies in their respective jurisdiction so that state PCB can compile such information in their respective reports furnished to CPCB."
7. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.01.2020, this Tribunal considered the action taken report filed by the DPCC that it has issued notice for closure under the Water Act and the Air Act and also directed disconnection of electricity and water supply. Show cause notice has also been issued for enforcement of the guidelines prepared by the CPCB. The local bodies have been asked to perform their duties. The Tribunal then considered the reports dated 18.08.2019 and 22.01.2020 filed by the CPCB as follows:
"9. CPCB has filed two reports. First report is dated 18.09.2019, to the effect that an expert group was constituted. After discussion and interaction with the stakeholders, Guidelines for Environmental Management of Dairy Farms and Gaushalas were finalized. As per available statistics, prepared by the CPCB population of adult female bovine in the country is 13,32,71,000. Many dairy farms and gaushalas discharge the cattle dung along with wastewater into the drains, leading to clogging, which ultimately reach rivers and creates water pollution. Also, these clogged drains become breeding ground for mosquitoes, creating health hazards and odour nuisance. The dung produces many gases/compounds such as Carbon dioxide, Ammonia, Hydrogen sulphide, Methane, etc. which are emitted into the atmosphere and are responsible for degradation of air quality. The greenhouse gases, mainly Methane and Carbon dioxide, produced by dung also impact the climate. Disposal of cow/buffalo dung is the biggest challenge in dairy farms and gaushalas. However, cattle dung, if effectively utilised, can be an excellent resource of manure & energy and reduce the adverse impact on environment. The cattle dung contains many beneficial constituents which may be used as fuel source either by direct combustion or converted to biogas, soil conditioner, fertilizers, material for wall plastering, construction of granaries, livestock & fish feeding, etc. The draft Guidelines stipulate solid waste management, waste water management, air quality management, monitoring mechanism to be adopted by the local authorities/ Corporations/ PCBs/ PCCs. The guidelines also prescribed a Performa for monitoring by the local authorities/Corporations for preparing inventories of dairies farm and gaushala.11
10. Second report dated 22.01.2020 is to the effect that the inventory Performa was circulated to the PCBs/PCCs to which response was received from 31 States/UTs. No response was received from Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Uttarakhand and Delhi. 20 States provided the details while 11 States/UTs have yet to provide details. Observations and conclusion in the report are :-
"3.0 Observations:
Following are the observations based on the information as received from SPCBs/PCCs about dairies and gaushalas operating in the States/UTs:
i. The total number of dairies operating in 19 States/UTs is 93,033 (ninety three thousand & thirty three) and total number of animals in these dairies is 7,04,127 (seven lakh, four thousand, one hundred & twenty seven).
ii. There are 960 dairy colonies/clusters in 19 States/UTs.
iii. The total number of gaushalas operating in 20 States/UTs is 6,462 and total number of animals in these gaushalas is 3,51,592.
iv. The total amount of dung generated/produced by animals in dairies and gaushalas in the 20 States/UTs is 2,58,688 ton/day and.13,698 ton/day, respectively.
v. In general, the methods used in States/UTs for disposal/utilization of cattle dung include using dung as manure in fields, vermi-composting, biogas generation, etc. vi. SPCBs/PCCs have not provided the information about disposal/utilization of wastewater.
4.0 Conclusion:
i. The local authorities/corporations should carry out inventory of all the dairy farms and gaushalas located in their jurisdiction in the prescribed performa. The same should be updated and shared with the concerned SPCB/PCC on regular basis.
ii. The dairies and gaushalas operating in the States/UTs should follow the "Guidelines for Environmental Management of Dairy Farms and Gaushalas."
11. xx xx xx
12. xx xx xx 12
13. We may note that the matter is dealt with under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (EP Rules). With reference to Rule 3 thereof, general standards have been laid down in Schedule 6 in part A and part B.
14. We may now deal with the reports of the CPCB. The first report relates to Guidelines. We find that the draft Guidelines do not specifically mention the mandate of the Water and the Air Act. The issue has already been dealt with by this Tribunal. While sanitation may be an issue to be dealt with by local bodies, the Water Act, the Air Act and the EP Act are special laws dealing with the environment which do not stand excluded by application of other Municipal Laws. Regulatory regime of the Water Act, the Air and the EP Act is required to be followed and enforced by the State PCBs/PCCs, independent of the powers of local bodies to enforce the municipal laws. Precautionary and Sustainable Development principles are over arching principles which are not only enforceable by this Tribunal under Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, but are also part of the Article 21 of the Constitution, which is a Fundamental Right, creating reciprocal obligation on all State authorities. Thus, the Guidelines prepared by the CPCB need to be revised by specifying that State Boards/Committees must enforce 'consent mechanism' and, in particular, follow an appropriate siting policy in the light of the carrying capacity of the area for commercial dairy activities, having potential for air and water pollution. Dairy activities have been categorized as 'Orange' category as per the laid down guidelines.
15. The second report relating to analysis of action taken by all States/UTs is incomplete for want of data. For this purpose, we direct that all the local bodies may furnish relevant information to the State PCBs within one month from today. Private operators, including cooperative societies or other entities, not falling within the jurisdiction of Local Bodies, may also furnish the requisite information to the State PCBs within the same time. The State PCBs may, apart from compiling information and forwarding the same to the CPCB, perform their statutory obligations under the Water Act, the Air Act and the EP Act for enforcing environmental norms by such dairy activities with a view to protect the environment and the public health. The State PCBs/PCCs may publish an appropriate notice on the subject within two weeks from today requiring furnish of information and also adopting all necessary safeguards in the matter. Thereafter, the State PCBs/PCCs may furnish factual and action taken reports in the matter to the CPCB latest by 30.04.2020. CPCB may compile the data received and file a comprehensive report before this Tribunal by e-mail at [email protected] before the next date.
A copy of this order be forwarded to CPCB, SPCBs/ PCCs, Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs. The SPCBs/PCCS may forward a copy of this order to all the local bodies in their respective jurisdiction within one week from today. 13
Since the issue being dealt with is an issue in rem and enforcement is left to the statutory bodies, we do not find it necessary to consider individual matters in these proceedings which may be dealt with by the concerned statutory authorities in accordance with law. 7 Accordingly, the private parties will stand deleted from the memo of parties."
(emphasis supplied)
8. Accordingly, the CPCB has filed a status report on 12.05.2020 in the light of recommendations of Expert Group recommending issuance of guidelines for Environment Management of Dairy Farms and Gaushalas. Apart from the draft guidelines annexed to the report, CPCB has also furnished status of inventory of Dairy Farms and Gaushalas in compliance of Hon'ble NGT order. The report states that except Manipur and Delhi, response has been received from 34 States/UTs. 28 States/UTs have provided the details, while six States are in the process. The observations of CPCB in this regard are:
"i. The total number of dairies operating in 26 States/UTs are 2,73,437 (two lakhs, seventy-three thousand, four hundred & thirty-seven) and total number of animals in these dairies are 21,34,018 (twenty-one lakhs, thirty-four thousand & eighteen).
ii. There are 2793 dairy colonies/clusters in 26 States/UTs.
iii. The total number of gaushalas operating in 28 States/UTs are 5,964 and total number of animals in these gaushalas are 4,36,727.
iv. The total amount of dung generated/produced by animals in dairies and gaushalas in the 28 States/UTs are 2,60,922 tons/day and 1,49,945 tons/day, respectively.
v. In general, the methods used in States/UTs for disposal/utilization of cattle dung include using dung as manure in fields, vermi-composting, biogas generation, fish feed, fuel for cremation etc. vi. SPCBs/PCCs have not provided the information about disposal/utilization of wastewater, however, Chhattisgarh, 7 In M.C Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 756 - Para 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that while issuing a direction in rem, all affected individuals need not be heard. (The said case concerned shifting of diesel to CNG by all the bus operators and plea that all the bus operators were required to be individually heard was rejected.) 14 Kerala and Mizoram states that wastewater being used for fodder cultivation.
vii. The area-wise inventory of dairies and gaushalas in the States/UTs are provided at Annexure-V. The dairies in urban, peri-urban and rural are 6%, 3% and 91% respectively whereas the animals in them are 12%, 4% and 84 % respectively. The gaushalas in urban, peri-urban and rural area are 47%, 5% and 48% respectively whereas animals in them are 23%, 13% and 64% respectively."
9. With regard to direction to State PCBs/PCCs to issue a public notice with a view to protect environment, it is stated that out of 36 States/UTs, 12 have published such notices. Conclusion in the report are:
"4. Conclusion:
i. The local authorities/corporations should carry out inventory of all the dairy farms and gaushalas located in their jurisdiction in the prescribed performa. The same should be updated and shared with the concerned SPCB/PCC on annual basis (calendar year wise).
ii. All the dairy farms and gaushalas should be
registered with the local bodies/corporations
preferably through online mode. The local
bodies/corporations should display the same at their websites.
iii. The dairy farms (having animal population of 10 & above animals) and gaushalas should obtain consent to establish and consent to operate under Water Act, 1974 as well as Air Act, 1981 from the concerned SPCBs/PCCs.
iv. The local bodies/ SPCBs/ PCCs/ Gram Panchayat in the States/UTs shall ensure that dairies and gaushalas operating should follow the "Guidelines for Environmental Management of Dairy Farms and Gaushalas."
10. At this stage, we may refer to the salient features of the information compiled by the CPCB and the proposed guidelines. Statistics provided is as follows:
"The dairies/gaushalas may be categorised on the basis of nos. of animals (adult cows & female buffaloes) in a dairy/gaushala i.e. Category-I (upto 25 animals), Category-II (26-50 animals), Category- III (51-75 animals), Category-IV (76-100 animals) and Category-V (above 100 animals).
As per the Livestock Census, carried out by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture 15 and Farmers Welfare, the year-wise livestock population of adult female bovine is as follow:
Adult Adult Female Total Cows &
Sl. No. Year
Cows Buffaloes Buffaloes
1 195 5,44,00,00 2,10,00,000 7,54,00,000
1
195 0
4,73,00,00
2 2,17,00,000 6,90,00,000
6
196 0
5,10,00,00 2,43,00,000
3 7,53,00,000
1
196 0
5,18,00,00
4 2,54,00,000 7,72,00,000
6
197 0
5,34,00,00 2,86,00,000
5 8,20,00,000
2
197 0
5,46,00,00
6 3,13,00,000 8,59,00,000
7
198 0
5,92,00,00
7 3,25,00,000 9,17,00,000
2
198 0
6,21,00,00
8 3,91,00,000 10,12,00,000
7
199 0
6,44,00,00
9 4,38,00,000 10,82,00,000
2
199 0
6,44,00,00
10 4,68,00,000 11,12,00,000
7
200 0
6,45,00,00
11 5,10,00,000 11,55,00,000
3
200 0
7,30,00,00
12 5,45,00,000 12,75,00,000
7
201 0
7,67,00,00
13 5,66,00,000 13,33,00,000
2
201 0
8,14,00,00
14 5,50,00,000 13,64,00,000
9 0
Also, as per the Livestock Census carried out by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, in 2019, the state-wise total population of adult female bovine is as follow:
SI. No. State/UT Adult Cows Adult Female Total Cows & Buffaloes Buffaloes
1. Andhra Pradesh 19,80,000 31,61,000 51,41,000
2. Arunachal 1,02,000 2,000 1,04,000 Pradesh
3. Assam 38 18,000 1,38,000 39,56,000
4. Bihar 71,47,000 36,70,000 1,08,17,000
5. Chhattisgarh 33,79,000 3,83,000 37,62,000
6. Goa 30,000 14,000 , 44,000
7. Gujarat 44,94,000 56,71,000 1,01,65,000
8. Haryana 9,45,000 21,00,000 30,45,000
9. Himachal 9,32,000 3,69,000 13,01,000 Pradesh Jammu & 10 12,31,000 4,02,000 16,33,000 Kashmir 11 Jharkhand 34,58,000 4,35,000 38,93,000 12 Karnataka 40,63,000 16,71,000 57,34,000 13 Kerala 6,90,000 8,000 6,98,000 14 Madhya Pradesh 73,42,000 52,96,000 1,26,38,000 15 Maharashtra 56,99,000 33,19,000 90,18,000 16 Manipur 77,000 10,000 87,000 17 Meghalaya 3,33,000 3,000 3,36,000 18 Mizoram 21,000 1,000 22,000 19 Nagaland 21,000 3,000 24,000 20 Odisha 31,94,000 1,52,000 33,46,000 21 Punjab 15,25,000 22,76,000 38,01,000 22 Rajasthan 68,19,000 70,15,000 1,38,34,000 23 Sikkim 68,000 0 68,000 24 Tamil Nadu 48,20,000 2,61,000 50,81,000 , 25 Telangana 14,93,000 21,86,000 36,79,000 26 Tripura 3,03,000 3,000 3,06,000 27 Uttarakhand 8,22,000 4,96,000 13,18,000 16 28 Uttar Pradesh 92,07,000 1,57,32,000 2,49,39,000 29 West Bengal 72,73,000 1,93,000 74,66,000 30 A & N Islands 16,000 1,000 17,000 31 Chandigarh 8,000 8,000 16,000 32 Dadar & Nagar 4,000 1,000 5,000 Haveli 33 Daman & Diu 1,000 0 1,000 34 Delhi Not Not available Not available available 35 Lakshadweep 1,000 0 1,000 36 Puducherry 37,000 2,000 39,000 37 All India 8,13,53,000 5,49,82,000 13,63,35,000 "
11. The report mentions environmental issues as follows:
"2.Environmental Issues in Dairy Farms and Gaushalas The major environmental issues of dairy farms and gaushalas are discharges of dung and urinal wastewater. The poor handling of dung and wastewater causes odour problem also. A Bovine animal, on an average, weigh 400 kg and discharges 15-20 kg/day of dung and 15-20 litres/day of urine.
Many dairy farms and gaushalas discharge the cattle dung along with wastewater into the drains, leading to clogging, which ultimately reach to rivers and create water pollution. Also, these clogged drains become breeding ground for mosquitoes creating health hazards and odour nuisance. The dung produces many gases/compounds such as carbon dioxide, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, methane, etc. which emitted into the atmosphere and responsible for odour issue.
The disposal of cow/buffalo dung is the biggest challenge in dairy farms and gaushalas. However, cattle dung, if effectively utilised, can be a resource of manure & energy. The cattle dung contains many beneficial constituents which may be used as fuel source either by direct combustion (dung wood) or converted to biogas, soil conditioner, fertilizers, material for wall plastering, construction of granaries, livestock & fish feeding, etc."
(emphasis supplied)
12. The guidelines are:
"3. Guidelines for Waste Management in Dairy Farms and Gaushalas:
3.1 Solid Waste Management The solid wastes produced from dairy farms and gaushalas are basically organic in nature, consisting of cattle dung, feed residue, bedding, etc. The waste produced is not hazardous in nature but its proper handling and disposal needs attention.
The guidelines for the management of solid wastes are as follow:
17
i. Dairies and gaushalas should collect dung from the floor of the shed at regular interval, so as to keep the floor clean. The surrounding areas should also be cleaned regularly to prevent obnoxious smell in the area. ii. Dairy premises and its surrounding areas should be properly sanitized and disinfected, e.g. by sprinkling crushed lime, regularly.
iii. The solid wastes should be collected & stored properly for its treatment.
iv. Dairies and gaushalas should dispose the biomedical wastes (vaccines, vails, medicines, syringes, etc.) as per the provisions of "Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016".
v. Dairies and gaushalas should not wash dung & fodder residue etc. into drains in order to avoid clogging of drains. The local bodies/corporations/SPCBs should ensure that untreated wastes are not discharged outside the dairy premises.
vi. Dairies and gaushalas should have adequate infrastructure to ensure proper handling, treatment and disposal of solid wastes and wastewater. They may set-up individual or common treatment facilities wherein cluster. The local government bodies/corporations/SPCBs should facilitate the dairies/gaushalas/ entrepreneurs/ NGOs in setting up of individual or common treatment facilities.
vii. vii. The following methods for disposal/ utilisation of solid wastes (dung) may be adopted:
a. Composting/Vermicomposting: Composting is a manure management practice to reduce the impact on the environment. Composting is the biological decomposition and stabilization of organic material. The process produces a final product that is stable, free of pathogens, reduced odours and can be applied on the land. Vermicomposting is the method of preparing compost with the use of earthworms that enriches soil quality by improving its physicochemical and biological properties. It is becoming popular as a major component of organic farming system.
b. Biogas/Compressed biogas (CBG) production (anaerobic digestion): Biogas plants are the best way to handle the dung waste. Biogas is generated in the process of biodegradation of organic materials under anaerobic conditions which may be utilised for cooking and power generation. The Biogas plant provides the digested organic manure for crops. Biogas can be processed and filled in cylinders. The bio-gas may be further purified to remove hydrogen sulphide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) & water vapour and compressed (known as Compressed Bio Gas, CBG) which has methane (CH4) content of more than 90% as per BIS standard IS 16087:2016. CBG has calorific value and other properties similar to CNG and hence can be utilized as green renewable fuel as replacement of CNG in automotive, industrial and commercial areas.18
c. Manufacture of dung wood to be used as fuel: The cattle dung can be used as fuel as a replacement of firewood. The cattle dung can be dewatered and converted to value added products such as logs, powder etc. by mechanized/semi-mechanized machines. This option can be easily adopted at dairy farms and gaushalas in economical manner, creating substantial value & no damage to the environment. 3.2 Wastewater Management The guidelines for the management of wastewater are as follow:
i. Dairies and gaushalas should take necessary steps for the judicious usage of water for drinking & bathing of cattles and other services including floor cleaning, however, the same should not exceed 150 litres/day/cattle.
ii. Dairies and gaushalas should ensure that the wastewater, being discharged, is adequately treated so as to meet the standards as prescribed by SPCBs/PCCs.
iii. Dairies and gaushalas should ensure that the wastewater does not percolate through ground and pollutes the groundwater. The flooring of the shed should be properly paved (impervious) with a wastewater collection system. However, the floor should not be slippery in order to ensure safety of animals.
3.3 Air Quality Management The guidelines for the management of air quality/emissions (includes gaseous emissions, odour and dust) from dairy farms and gaushalas are as follow:
i. The animal housing should be adequately ventilated allowing sufficient supply of fresh air to remove humidity, dissipate heat and prevent build-up of gases such as methane, carbon dioxide, ammonia, etc. ii. Dairy farms and gaushalas should follow good housekeeping practices like maintaining proper sanitary conditions, protecting dung from unwanted pests/insects in order to minimize odour nuisance.
iii. The floor, feeding, water and air spaces available for each animal should be adequate for standing, resting, loafing, movement, feeding, watering and ventilation. The space requirements should be provided as per the standards prescribed by the Bureau of India Standards (BIS).
iv. Dairy farms and gaushalas should improve/modify the quality and dosage of feed/forage/supplements in order to reduce enteric methane generations from livestock. It is beneficial to animal health/nutrition and reduced impact on environment. They should obtain ration advisory for the same from any of the agricultural institutes/departments like Krishi Vigyan Kendra, State 19 Dairy Department, Animal Husbandry Department, NDRI, NDDB, etc. v. Dairy farms and gaushalas should plant trees or develop green belts to provide a barrier against the spread of foul smell or noise originating from them.
4. Siting Policy:
The siting policy for dairy farms and gaushalas are as follow:
i. Dairy farms and gaushalas should be located outside city/village boundaries and away from residential dwellings, hospitals, schools.
ii. Dairy farms and gaushalas should not be located in flood prone areas, subject to flooding at 1-in-25-year or more frequent levels in order to avoid contamination of water bodies.
iii. Dairy farms and gaushalas should not be located in areas with shallow groundwater depth of about 10 to 12 feet and in particular in alluvium areas in order to avoid groundwater contamination.
iv. Dairy farms and gaushalas may be allowed to follow minimum distance criteria given below which may be subject to vary with the local conditions:
a. National and State Highways: 200 meters from National Highway and 100 meters from State Highway in order to avoid odour nuisance and road accident caused due to cattle.
b. Major drinking water reservoir on catchment side: 500 meters in order to avoid water contamination due to leakages/spillages from the dairy farms and gaushalas.
c. Drinking water source like wells, summer storage tanks, other tanks (drinking water): 100 meters in order to avoid water contamination.
d. Major watercourses like River and Lake: 500 meters in order to avoid water contamination.
e. Canals: 200 meters in order to avoid water contamination.
5. Regulatory/ Monitoring Mechanism:
i. The local authorities/corporations should carry out inventory of all the dairy farms and gaushalas located in their jurisdiction in the prescribed performa given at Annexure-II. The same should be updated and shared with the concerned SPCB/PCC on annual basis (calendar year wise).
ii. All the dairy farms and gaushalas should be registered with the local bodies/corporations 20 preferably through online mode. The local bodies/corporations should display the same at their websites.
iii. The dairy farms (having animal population of 10 & above animals) and gaushalas should obtain consent to establish and consent to operate under Water Act, 1974 as well as Air Act, 1981 from the concerned SPCBs/PCCs.
iv. SPCBs/PCCs should provide training and consultation to the Gram Panchayat for implementation of guidelines in their jurisdiction.
Gram Panchayat should ensure the implementation of the guidelines by dairy farms and gaushalas falling under their jurisdiction for handling and management of the wastes.
v. The concerned local bodies/corporations/SPCBs /PCCs should monitor the dairy farms and gaushalas on regular basis to ensure the proper disposal of cattle dung and wastewater to check compliance of environmental norms. The SPCBs/PCCs will considered the carrying capacity of the surroundings while allowing a new establishment and laying down the environmental norms.
vi. Hands on practical trainings on environment/waste management & treatment technologies, scientific feeding for enteric methane reduction, waste to wealth management programme, etc. should be provided to dairy workers/entrepreneurs by the local bodies/SPCBs/PCCs on regular interval.
(emphasis supplied)
13. We are of the view that the guidelines proposed may be finalized and enforced as per the mandate of the statute which will bind the States PCBs/PCCs. Compliance thereof may be monitored by the CPCB. The CPCB may evolve appropriate monitoring mechanism in this regard, including a provision for audit of compliance atleast once in six months.
14. With regard to siting policy, atleast minimum distance must be specified from habitations, water bodies, etc. as well as inter-se distance of such establishments, consistent with the carrying capacity of the area, as may be necessary for protection of environment. Needless to say that any violation of environment norms under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 21 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has to be dealt with by the concerned PCB/PCC/Local Body by way of stopping polluting activities, recovering compensation and initiating prosecution. It will be appropriate that broad and indicative compensation regime is expressly specified by the CPCB. While local bodies may undertake the exercise of preparing inventory as per applicable Municipal law, the State PCBs/PCCs must also not avoid their responsibility of enforcing the mandate of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
15. Guidelines may be finalized and issued by the CPCB within one month from today. Compliance reports be sought from the State PCBs/PCCs within two months thereafter. A consolidated report based on the information received may be filed by the CPCB on or before 30.09.2020. Report be sent by e-
mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image/PDF.
16. Since CPCB is to monitor the issue and furnish consolidated report, it is not necessary for individual local bodies or PCBs/PCCs to appear before this Tribunal.
List for further consideration on 08.10.2020."
5. In light of the observations made by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal and order and directions passed in O.A. No. 46/2018, all the applications relating to the Solid Waste Management and the Liquid Waste Management are decided in terms of the order passed as above in the O.A. No. 46/2018. The respondents are directed to monitor the things and report to the Principal Bench on the date fixed there. All the original 22 applications, relating to Solid Waste Management and the Liquid Waste Management with regard to the dairies are decided accordingly.
6. Now coming to the issue no. 2, some of the applicant has raised the question that respondents be directed not to take any coercive measures to demolish the structures which are being used for dairy purposes. They have also raised the question that they have right to carry trade and business and respondent cannot restrain them from carrying the business. Following issues have also been raised:-
"C. That, the petitioner would like to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble High Court that the petitioner has received absolutely no notice from the Respondent No. 2 in connection with the demolition dated: 02.12.2014 which has been carried out in connection with the order dated: 24.11.2014 of this Hon'ble High Court. As already mentioned in the facts the order dated: 24.11.2014 passed in W.P. 1219/2014 was an order laying the burden of proof on the shoulders of the Respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 has failed to appreciate the order of this Hon'ble High Court so as to ascertain whether the land was authorized Or not, and also in a very clandestine Manner has overlooked the aspect expressly mentioned in the same order as to removal of the structures following due process { emphasis laid}.
D. That, the petitioner would like to mention at this juncture that as per Section 307 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 it is mandatory for the Commissioner to serve a notice to any person before any kind of demolition work. can be ensued. The relevant portion of Section 307 of the Act reads as follows: "S. 307. Power to require, removal or alteration of work not inconformity with byelaws or any scheme or any other requirement. --
(1.) If any building is erected or re-erected in contravention of any town planning scheme mentioned under section 291 or of any:
building bye laws made under section 427, the Commissioner without prejudice to his right to take proceedings for a tine in respect of the contravention, may by notice require the owner to pull down or remove the work or, if he so elects, to effect such 23 alterations therein as may be necessary to make it comply with the said scheme or byelaws."
A. Simple and bare reading of the abovementioned paints a very clear picture that the due process which was spoken about in the order of this high Court in W.P. No. 1219/1998 dated:
24.11.2014 was not adhered to and followed. The Respondent No. 2 has failed to serve any kind of notice in adherence to S. 307 to the petitioner; hence the act of demolition which has been carried out is illegal, unwarranted and liable to be chastised by this Hon'ble High Court. Also the petitioner seeks appropriate order to the question of restitution of the same in accordance with law.
E. That, the petitioner would also like to submit that his dairy namely Akhtar Dairy comprises of nothing more than tin sheds in order to provide shade for the livestock. There are no high rise constructions with RCC, no cement ceilings, etc., the tin sheds are mostly suspended on iron poles amounting to merely sun -- shades. The petitioner's dairy is on his own land. F. That, in respect of the above made submission the petitioner would like to invite the Court's attention to Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012. As per the contentions of the aforementioned statute, there is a list of constructional work which does not need any sanction from the sanctioning authority. The relevant portion of the Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Bikas Niyam, 2012 is as below:
" 12. Permission for development or for Construction.
(1)Development or construction not to be without permission: No person shall carry out any development or erect, re-erect or make alterations or, demolish any building or cause the same to be done without obtaining prior permission in writing in this regard from the Authority.
Provided that no permission shall be required for:-
(a) Opening and closing of a window or door or ventilator;24
(b) ..
(c) ..
(K) constructions of sun shades on one's own land;
G. That, as per S. 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 mere construction of sun shades on one's own land would not need the sanction or permission of any authority and would also not be a violation in respect of any law. It is humbly submitted on part of the petitioner that his dairy does consist of nothing more than tin sheds in order to provide shade and pleasant living atmosphere to the livestock, to protect them from the sun in the summers and the rains in the monsoon season; hence the petitioner was not required to take any sanction or permission and was in no way in violation of any law. Thus, the demolition conducted by the Respondents No. 2 was illegal and bad in law. Photographs are being annexed herewith as Annexure P17. Photographs of the demolished structures. are also being annexed herewith as Annexure P/8.
H. That, the petitioner would like to bring to 'the foresighted notice of the -Hon'ble High Court that the business of the petitioner is that of dairy farming and that the same amounts to that of an agricultural business. It is universally accepted and understood that if the nature of a business is agricultural then there would be absolutely no need for the same to he carried out in residential land or commercial land. The business of dairy is exempted from payment of income tax, and moreover it is an established rule of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that dairy farming would amount toagricultural business. The petitioner would like to cite an act of the State of Madhya Pradesh in the abovementioned regard namely The Madhya Pradesh Krishi Udhar Pravartan Tatha Prafirn Upabandha (Bank) Adhiniyana, 1972.
S. 2 of the above mentioned act reads as follows:
"2. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-
(a)"agriculture" shall include making land fit for cultivation, cultivation of land, improvement of land including development of sources of irrigation, raising and harvesting of crops, horticulture, 25 forestry, planting and farming, cattle breeding, animal husbandry, dairy farming, seed farming, pisciculture, apilculture, sericulture, piggery, poultry farming and such other activities as are generally carried on by cultivators, dairy farmers, cattle breeders, poultry farmers and other category of people engaged in similar activities including marketing of cultural products, their storage and transport and the acquisition of implements and machinery in connection with any such activity and the expression "agricultural purpose" and agricultural product shall be construed accordingly;
(b)"agriculturist" means a person who is engaged in agriculture;"
I. That, demonstrating the abovementioned; i.e. the definition of agriculture and an agriculturist as per S. 2 of the M.P. Krishi Udhar Pravartan Tatha Prakirn Upbandha (Bank) Adhinayam, 1972 it becomes as clear as a mushroom cloud in the autumn noon that the business of dairy farming would come within the ambit of an agricultural business.
J. That, keeping the above submission in mind the petitioner is forced to ask himself a question, would one need to carry on a business of agricultural nature on commercial or residential land? The answer to the same would be rather simple, No! The business of dairy, since now is an established fact is that of an agricultural kind it can very aptly and correctly be carried out on agricultural land without the need of it being converted or diverted. It was the bona fide duty of the Respondent No. 2 to look into and secure all these aspects before bulldozing the structure of the petitioner. The Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 24.11.2014 has made it abundantly clear by careful use of words in as much laying the burden of proof on the shoulders of the Jabalpur Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur to ensure whether the structure would be an authorized one or not before removing the same. The respondent No. 1 has acted in a squarely arbitrary manner in not looking into all the above mentioned contentions and has reached the spot and perpetrated the act, which can now be said beyond reasonable doubt is illegal, liable to be chastised and further penalized.
26 K. That, other than this it is the case for the petitioner that he has been served with the Letter/Order No. 16691Kshe.Ka/Praniba/2014 dated 13.08.2014 by the Respondent No. 3 in accordance with Sec. 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the functioning of his dairy has been prohibited due to not fulfillment of two stipulations. Firstly, that the petitioner has not sought consent from the Pollution Control Board U/s 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, t974 and secondly, the treatment and disposal of pollutant effluent discharge from the dairy. That, it is submitted by the petitioner that the Respondent No. 3 has passed the said order/letter Ills 33-A arbitrarily being misinformed. L. That, as far as the aspect of consent U/s 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is considered it has been submitted by the petitioner in 'its reply vide Annexure P/4 that he was misinformed about the procedure of application and had also the same with an undertaking4 that the same would definitely be complied with in the near future. That in order to be eligible for the grant of consent, the petitioner was forced to carry out, certain miniature constructions such as that of the ETP(Effluent Treatment Plan). With the completion of the same the petitioner has immediately moved an application for the grant of consent U/s 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 before the Regional Office, M.P. Pollution Control Board, Vijaynagar, Jabalpur. A copy of the same is being annexed herewith as Annexure P19.
M. That in seconding of the abovementioned point the second contention as raised by the Respondent No. 3 i.e. that of the effluent discharge it is humbly submitted by the petitioner that ETP(Effluent Treatment Plan) has initiated which consists of a three step filtration process. As the water discharge of the dairy in firstly entered into a pit in which sedimentation of particulate waste takes place. Then is transferred through cemented nullah to a second pit in which further treatment and purification of the water in allowed. Finally the 27 remaining water which is clean and suitable for agricultural purposes is utilized for the same by the personal adjacent fields of the petitioner admeasuring about 20 acres.
N. That, other than this for the purpose of storage of the cow dung the petitioner has constructed an isolated cattle dung shed with the required flag stone flooring within the premises of his dairy. But very unfortunately and to his dismay the same cattle dung shed has been torn down by the demolishing authorities during the illegal demolition conducted on 02.12.2014 as demonstrated above in this petition. Even then the same is being utilized as the flooring which is the important part, so that there is no water seepage into the ground water, is still intact.
O. That, keeping all the above submissions in mind it can he confidently said that the two
contentions/conditions/stipulations/alleged violations as mentioned in, the Letter/Order dated: 13.08.2014 [Annexure P11] has been complied with/satisfied/adhered to in accordance with procedure and law. That only a bare reading of the same order can enlighten one that the same is a mere direction and even under the ambit of law; S. 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the respondent No. 2 has only the powers to issue directions. If the directions are not complied with the concerned authority may' have other remedies U/s 41 of the same Act, but such is not in the instant case. It is the very case for the petitioner that he has complied with all the directions given by the Respondent. The Respondent No. 3 has placed reliance on ancient information as old as the inspection dated: 21.12.2013 and 28.01.2014, after which a number of works have been completed in order to satisfy the needs of the Pollution Control Board and Society at large.
P. That, it is the humble- prayer of the petitioner that since the same has already been complied with and the fact that the same order [Annexure P/1] was passed in factual ignorance of the works and jobs completed, the order dated: 13.08.2014 be set-aside and this Hon'ble High Court be magnanimous enough to issue appropriate 28 writs in order to quash the same; allowing the petitioner to begin to function his dairy within the ambit of law and also restoring the electricity and supply of water to the dairy.
Q. That, it is also humbly submitted by the Petitioner that the orders passed by the Respondent No. 3 closing the functioning of the dairy of the petitioner is having a very adverse effect on the lives of the cattle. Dairy Farming is a business which is not wholly in the hands of the people. If the cattle are not milked everyday it is a biological fact that they face excruciating pain. Not only in the case of cattle but in every living mammal with similar biology will bitted with the same fate. As against this if the animals are milked and the owners are not allowed to sell the same it would mean the throwing away of more than one thousand liters (1000 liters) of milk every single day. This offer than being a loss to the Proprietor, which would be immaterial at this stage, is more importantly an immoral waste. That, the petitioner has made out a good case for the immediate interference of this Hon'ble High Court under its writ jurisdiction in as much to curb the unconstitutional and arbitrary acts of the respondents"
7. Now, it has been stated that the SDM Revenue has issued the notice to respondents or applicants dairy owners to take valid consent from the State Pollution Control Board to establish the ETP not to discharge the untreated water into the river and to do proper management with regard to solid waste, this means that the notice has been issued to the applicants and the version of the applicant that no notice has been issued to them, are not tenable. Further, the point as raised by the applicant that according to the rules as provided in Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 that before taking any action with regard to demolition of any building which was constructed without any permission, a notice is required to be issued to the affected person. The illegalities cannot be legalized by way of notice and the applicants are themselves responsible 29 for construction of temporary sheds or the construction without any permission. The rule is he who seeks equity must do equity and the person coming before the Court of Law must be of clean hand and his act must be fair and according to rules. If anyone commits any offence and violates any rule then by way of using the platform of the Court his illegal activities cannot be permitted to be regularized or cannot be permitted to continue further. The respondents, Municipal Corporation or State Pollution Control Board have been empowered to do their legal duties in accordance to law. This Tribunal cannot restrain the public authorities not to act in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the State Pollution Control Board has submitted that the State authorities are exercising their power which is vested in them by virtue of the provisions of law and also in accordance with the directions issued by the Tribunal from time to time. Thus, no direction can be issued to restrain the public authorities not to exercise their duties.
8. Thus, all these application with regard to passing of any interim order, with regard to demolition are disposed of accordingly and this Tribunal is of the view that the public authorities cannot be restrained from exercising their legal powers. Furthermore, in some of the applications, it has been stated that temporary sheds and structures have been demolished. Thus, it has become infructuous.
9. Now, coming to the pollution of rivers and discharging of untreated water in the river, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 22.06.2020 passed in O.A. No. 673/2018 has issued several directions.
We direct the authorities of the State to follow the guidelines issued in this original application. For ready reference some of the paragraphs are quoted below:-
"5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has noticed the level of degradation of rivers in India and apathy of the authorities as follows:
"58. Rivers in India are drying up, groundwater is being rapidly depleted, and canals are polluted. Yamuna in Delhi looks like a black drain. Several perennial rivers like Ganga 30 and Brahmaputra are rapidly becoming seasonal. Rivers are dying or declining, and aquifers are getting over pumped. Industries, hotels, etc. are pumping out groundwater at an alarming rate, causing sharp decline in the groundwater levels. Farmers are having a hard time finding groundwater for their crops e.g. in Punjab. In many places there are serpentine queues of exhausted housewives waiting for hours to fill their buckets of water. In this connection John Briscoe has authored a detailed World Bank Report, in which he has mentioned that despite this alarming situation there is widespread complacency on the part of the authorities in India.8
"4. We see Yamuna river virtually turned into a sullage. We take judicial notice of this situation. Similar is the position with Ganges. As it proceeds, industrial effluents are being poured in rivers. Sewage is also being directly put in rivers contributing to the river water pollution. We direct the Pollution Control Boards of the various States as well as the Central Pollution Control Board and various Governments to place before us the data and material with respect to various rivers in the concerned States, and what steps they are taking to curb the pollution in such rivers and to management as to industrial effluents, sewage, garbage, waste and air pollution, including the water management. We club the pending case of water management with this matter.9
7. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ("Water Act") prohibits use of any stream or well for disposal of polluted matter but this provision is certainly being held in breach without much consequences for the violators who are liable to be prosecuted and punished by imprisonment to uphold the rule of law and public health. Article 48A of the Constitution casts a duty on the State to protect and improve the environment. Article 51A imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the environment. The Stockholm Declaration (1972) recommended prevention of pollution by adopting the 'Precautionary Principle', the 'Polluter Pays Principle' and the principle of 'Sustainable Development'. The Statement of objects and reasons for The Water Act is as follows:
"The problem of pollution of rivers and streams has assumed considerable importance and urgency in recent years as a result of the growth of industries and the 8 State of Orissa v. Govt. of India, (2009) 5 SCC 492 9 M.C. Mehta Vs UOI- W.P. (Civil) No. 13029/1985 dated 25.11.2019 31 increasing tendency to urbanisation. It is, therefore, essential to ensure that the domestic and industrial effluents are not allowed to be discharged into the water courses without adequate treatment as such discharges would render the water unsuitable as source of drinking water as well as for supporting fish life and for use in irrigation. Pollution of rivers and streams also causes increasing damage to the country's economy.
A Committee was set up in 1962 to draw a draft enactment for the prevention of water pollution. The report of the Committee was circulated to the State Governments and was also considered by the Central Council of Local Self-Government in September, 1963. This Council resolved that a single law regarding measures to deal with water pollution control, both at the Centre and at the State levels, may be enacted by the Union Parliament. A Draft Bill was accordingly prepared and put up for consideration at a joint session of the Central Council of Local Self-Government and the Fifth Conference of the State Ministers of Town and Country Planning held in 1965. In pursuance of the decision of the joint session, the Draft Bill was considered subsequently in detail by a Committee of Ministers of Local Self-Government from the States of Bihar, Madras, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Haryana and West Bengal.
Having considered the relevant local provisions existing in the country and recommendations of the aforesaid Committees, the Government came to the conclusion that the existing local provisions are neither adequate nor satisfactory. There is, therefore, an urgent need for introducing a comprehensive legislation which would establish unitary agencies in the Centre and States to provide for the prevention, abatement and control of pollution of rivers and streams, for maintaining or restoring wholesomeness of such water courses and for controlling the existing and new discharges of domestic and industrial wastes."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in several matters that it is the duty of the State to ensure access to clean drinking water, which is part of Right to Life. The Hon'ble Court has repeatedly directed State bodies to enforce statutory provisions by municipal bodies and industries by stopping discharge of untreated sewage and effluents in rivers, and prevent water pollution in any form10. It was observed that water pollution causes serious diseases, including Cholera and Typhoid11. It was also observed that the educational institutions must teach atleast for one hour in a week 10 Orders dealing with pollution of river Pallar, Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. UOI, (1996) 5 SCC 647, A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62 ¶ 45 river Noyyal, in Tamil Nadu, (2009) 9 SCC 737 river Ganga, M.C. Mehta V.UOI& Ors. (1997) 2 SSC 411, (1988) 1 SCC 471 11 M.C. Mehta (1988), supra n.6 32 lessons relating to protection and improvement of environment, and suitable awareness programs be undertaken12. Likewise, the issue of Calcutta tanneries was considered in M.C Mehta Vs. Union of India And Ors.13, (Calcutta Tanneries' Matter). The tanneries were directed to be shifted by adopting the 'Precautionary Principle' so as to prevent discharge of effluents in the River Ganga. In view of dangerous potential of pollution, it has been laid down that even the State cannot grant any exemption for discharge of pollutants in water in violation of 'Precautionary' principle.14
9. In spite of the above, in flagrant violation of law of the land, polluted water in the form of sewage, industrial effluents or otherwise as also different forms of solid waste has continued to be discharged in the water bodies including the rivers or the canals/drains meeting the rivers. Violation of law is not only by private citizens but also statutory bodies including the local bodies and also failure of the regulatory authorities in taking adequate steps. There is no adequate coercive action or accountability, weakening the rule of law when large-scale violations go unaddressed despite repeated multitude of judicial orders.
11. The following additional information as per reports in public domain (subject to verification) also need to be noted:
(a) India is suffering from the worst water crisis in history and millions of lives and livelihoods are under threat. Currently, 600 million Indians face high to extreme water stress and about two lakh people die every year due to inadequate access to safe water15. Critical groundwater resources - which account for 40% of our water supply - are being depleted at unsustainable 12 Id.13
M.C. Mehta (1997), supra n.6 14 M.V. Nayudu, supra n. 6 15 Source: WRI Aqueduct; WHO Global Health Observatory 33 rates16.The crisis is only going to get worse. By 2030, the country's water demand is projected to be twice the available supply, implying severe water scarcity for hundreds of millions of people and an eventual ~6% loss in the country's GDP17. As per the report of National Commission for Integrated Water Resource Development of MoWR, the water requirement by 2050 in high use scenario is likely to be a milder 1,180 BCM, whereas the present- day availability is 695BCM. The total availability of water possible in country is still lower than this projected demand, at 1,137BCM. Thus, there is an imminent need to deepen our understanding of water resources and usage and use interventions that make our water use efficient and sustainable.
(b) Most states have achieved less than 50% of the total score in the augmentation of groundwater resources, highlighting the growing national crisis--54% of India's groundwater wells are declining, and 21 major cities are expected to run out of groundwater as soon as 2020, affecting ~100 million people18.
(c) With nearly 70% of water being contaminated, India is placed at 120th amongst 122 countries in the water quality index.
(d) As per statistics mentioned before the Lok Sabha on April 6, 2018, waterborne diseases such as cholera, acute diarrhoeal diseases, typhoid and viral hepatitis continue to be prevalent in India and have caused 10,738 deaths, over the last five years since 2017. Of this, acute diarrhoeal diseases caused maximum deaths followed by viral hepatitis, typhoid and cholera.19 16 Id.
17McKinsey & WRG, 'Charting our water future', 2009 https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/sustainability/pdfs/charting%20 our%20water%20future/charting_our_water_future_full_report_.ashx; World Bank; Times of India 18 Source: UN Water, 'Managing water under uncertainty and risk', 2010; World Bank (Hindustan Times, The Hindu).
19https://www.indiaspend.com/diarrhoea-took-more-lives-than-any-other-water-borne-disease-in-india- 58143/ 34
(e) As per 'National Health Profile' published by Central Bureau of Health Investigation, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, a total of 1535 deaths due to acute diarrhoeal diseases was reported during the year 2013.20
44. We may reiterate that the authorities' generic, vague and repeated stand over the decades, that some steps are being taken, or proposed to be taken in future, is untenable. This is so because such piecemeal action or remote planned action, which ultimately fails to stop or prevent water bodies' pollution nor result in punitive action against violators, cannot condone the continuing crime and damage to the environment. Indeed, also as repeatedly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same stand, culpable inaction, and 'passing-the-buck' approach has continued since decades21,and the situation only continues to worsen, much to the detriment of valuable human and other life. For current and continuing violations, action must be taken according to law by way of recovery of compensation, closing polluting activity and other measures. Violators must be brought to justice. Not doing so by the authorities may lead to inference of collusion with law violators and demonstrate a lack of commitment to public duties entrusted to the statutory and oversight authorities.
I. Directions:
45. We reiterate our directions in order dated 6.12.2019 in the present matter, reproduced in ParaError! Reference source not found.above, read with those in order dated 21.5.2020 in OA 873/2017 and direct CPCB and Secretary, Jal Shakti to further 20 http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=106612 21 M.C. Mehta (2015), Para 15, supra, Para Error! Reference source not found.; M.C. Mehta (2006), Para 61, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined.; M.C. Mehta (2019), Para 15, note Error! Bookmark not defined.. 35
monitor steps for enforcement of law meaningfully in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal. The monitoring is expected with reference to ensuring that no pollution is discharged in water bodies and any violation by local bodies or private persons are dealt with as per mandate of law as laid down in orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal without any deviation from timelines. The higher authorities must record failures in ACRs as already directed and recover compensation as per laid down scale. Every State/UT in the first instance must ensure that atleast one polluted river stretch in each category is restored so as to meet all water quality standards upto bathing level. This may serve as a model for restoring the remaining stretches.
Further reports be filed by the CPCB and Secretary Jal Shakti by15.9.2020 by e-mail at [email protected](preferably in the form of searchable/OCR PDF and not image PDF).
As already noted, the constant difficulty faced by this Tribunal in monitoring abatement of pollution in river Ganga (as well other polluted rivers) remains failure of States and PCBs/PCCs to enforce its orders, despite repeated directions and close monitoring, even in physical presence of Chief Secretaries who have appeared before this Tribunal."
10. Accordingly, with above observations all the applications are disposed of finally with direction to public authorities to follow the guidelines and the rules and also follow the guidelines as directed in the original applications mentioned above. The State Pollution Control Board is directed to monitor the status of dairies and also to monitor the water quality of the river and discharge of untreated water in the rivers. The State Pollution Control 36 Board is directed to ensure that no untreated water be discharged into the river. A regulatory method should be evolved to monitor the dairies.
11. With these observations, all the applications are disposed of.
12. A copy of the order be also kept in the connected records.
Justice Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Siddhanta Das, EM JG Original Application 105/2017 and connected matters 37