National Green Tribunal
Action For Community Foundation vs Central Pollution Control Board ... on 14 July, 2021
Item No. 03
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No.11/2020 (CZ)
With
I.A. No. 69/2020
Action for Community Foundation Applicant (s)
Versus
Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 14.07.2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv.
Dr. Laxman Raghav (President)
For Respondent(s): Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Shivi Sanyam, Adv.
Mr. Jappanpreet Hora, Adv.
Mr. Yadvendra Yadav, Adv.
ORDER
1. Issue of violation of environmental norms as provided under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Notifications issued from time to time under these enactments are raised in this application.
2. It is alleged that Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are Statutory Authorities and are under legal obligation to prevent the air pollution and water pollution and violation of environmental norms but due to negligence of the officials, who are responsible for taking action, industrial units are violating the norms, discharging the untreated water into the open land or the municipal drains, causing health hazard to the local residents. The units operating in District Alwar, Rajasthan are not having valid Consent to Operate (CTO) 1 under the relevant Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and are not having authorization under Hazardous Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Consent to Operate (CTO) has been granted mechanically without actual physical inspection and sample analysis. They have not taken any permission from Central Ground Water Authority for extraction of ground water and are extracting ground water without any permission from the Competent Authority. Unregulated operation of the industries are causing severe pollution in the District Alwar, Rajasthan and causing Asthma, Lung Cancer, Tonsil Cancer, Pharynx diseases, Skin Cancer, Food Pipe Carcinoma, Kidney Failure and ground water deteriorated and is now dark zone for the purpose of extraction of ground water.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has further submitted that the industries in the District Alwar are extracting the ground water in violation of order passed by this Tribunal in the Original Application No. 176 of 2015 titled Mr. Shailesh Singh Vs. Hotel Holiday, Regency Moradabad & Ors. and are further violating the orders passed in Original Application No. 658 of 2019 titled Rajesh vs. State of Haryana. The industries are running in district Alwar (industrial area i.e. Bhiwadi, Chopanki, Kaharani, Khushkhera, Pathsadi, Sarekhurd, Dhami Industrial Area, Behror and Tapukara).
4. The matter was taken up on 06.07.2020 and this Tribunal directed the Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Board to submit a Factual and Action Taken Report but the report has not been filed till date. Respondent No. 3, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation has filed the status report with the fact that the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board is a Nodal and Statutory Authority and is responsible for monitoring the Air and Water Pollution in Rajasthan. The respondent/RIICO is a body corporate that has pioneered industrialization of the State of Rajasthan by setting up of industrial area. 2 The answering Respondent further submits that it allocates land for the establishment of industry at industrial area, inter alia, on condition that the industry shall treat its effluent to the satisfaction and standards decided by Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board shall obtain the Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from Rajasthan State Pollution Control before commencement of construction and production. In this regard, it is pertinent to state that the answering respondent has allotted the land subject to the said condition and has further allowed transfer of the rights subject to the clearances from the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board.
5. The land allocated in favor of one, M/s Ajanta Chemical Industries for setting up their unit in Bhiwadi, Rajasthan on 24.01.2000, subject to the condition as stipulated in Clause 9 of the allotment letter, whereby the industries allotment is subject to the condition that the effluent discharge would have to be pre-treated to the satisfaction of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and that the industry would obtain the No- Objection Certificate, Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board before commencement of construction. Copy of the allotment letter dated 24.01.2000 is marked and annexed. Similar condition (Specifically in Clause 9 of the allotment letter) has been incorporated while sanctioning allotment in favour of M/s Cepham Medical leasing Limited on 12.01.1988, a copy of which is marked and annexed. Similarly, the expansion has been sanctioned and the transfer of the lease hold rights for lands have been transferred subject to the condition stipulated in Clause 21 of the letter dated 26.05.2010, whereby the purchaser is bound to obtain NOC from all Statutory Authorities, including the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board. Copy of the letter dated 26.05.2010 annexed. 3
6. The answering respondent vide its letter dated 07.03.2006, has further while granting permission for transfer of lease hold rights in favor of one, M/s Aditi organics, has further clarified that such units are only allowed to establish non-polluting and zero discharge units. Copy of the letter dated 07.03.2006 is annexed. Similar conditions have been prescribed while sanctioning the transfer of lease hold rights in favor of M/S Jaquar and Company Pvt. Ltd. vide its letter dated 24.08.2015. A copy of the letter dated 24.08,2015 is annexed.
7. The answering respondent further submits that the permission, in favour of M/S Scot India is also subject to NOC as stipulated in Clause 16 of the letter dated 22.01.2004. Copy of the letter dated 22.01.2004 is annexed.
8. Further similar conditions are incorporated in sanction to M/s Bakshi Steel Pvt. Limited, as would be evident from Clause 7 of the allotment dated 09.04.1979. Copy of the allotment dated 09.04.1979 is annexed.
9. The answering respondent further submits that the allotment in favor of Amtek India Ltd, Maharaj Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd, Varun Beverages Limited, United Breweries Ltd., Shree Cement Limited, Pine Laminates Private Limited, M/s. Leader Industries Limited, Kusum Health Care Limited has been sanctioned and allowed only subject to the receipt of NOC from the State Pollution Control Board. Copy of the allotment letters issued in favor of Amtek lndia Ltd, Maharaj Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd, Varun Beverages Limited, United Breweries Ltd., Shree Cement Limited, Pine Laminates Private Limited, M/s. Leader Industries Limited, Kusum Health Care Limited by the answering Respondent are annexed.
10. The said industries have adduced the Consent to Operate by them as sanctioned by the State Pollution Control Board. It is submitted that the said industries have obtained the consent of the State Pollution Control Board as is evident from the Consent to operate issued in favor of M/s 4 Ajanta Chemical Industries, Rajasthan, Antibiotics Limited, Acro Paints Limited, Continental Engineers Limited, M/s Jaquar and Company Pvt. Ltd, M/s. Castex Technologies Limited (earlier Amtek), M/s. Anshul Strips Pvt. Ltd., M/S Jyotoika Strips Pvt. Ltd, M/s. Laxmi Vijay Steels Pvt. Ltd, Maharaj Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd, Varun Beverages Limited, United Breweries Ltd., Shree Cement Limited, Pine Laminates Private Limited, M/s. Leader Industries Limited, Kusum Health Care Limited, copies of which are annexed.
11. It is further pertinent to state that the answering Respondent carries out the construction of drains on both sides of roads for Storm water during the development of the industrial areas it is submitted that the answering Respondent is given to understand that on the visit on 11.08.2020 by the officials of CPCB and RSPCB to Viilage Gadpur, no over flowing from the drain was found as well as no water was found to have been accumulated in the photographed area. The CPCB Team also took a few photographs of the site as on 11.08.2020.Although the condition of drain was found deteriorated at few stretches and in the drain some plastic waste was found accumulated. It is submitted that the answering Respondents are taking all steps towards improvement of drains. The answering Respondent has taken steps for cleaning of the drain on 12.08.2020. A tender was floated for the work of improvement of drain on 23.07.2020 which includes complete Repairing and cleaning of drain also, which was also apprised to the committee. Pursuant thereto, the meeting work order for improvement of drain near Gadpur Mode at Industrial Area, Chopanki has also been given to M/s Kapoor Singh & company on 18.08.2020. Copy of the work order dated 18.08.2020, 18.09.2020, 21.09.2020 and 23.09.2020 are marked and annexed.
12. The answering Respondent submits that it is taking all steps for ensuring that the drains are cleaned and that all steps are taken for ensuring sustainable development. The answering Respondent further submits that 5 it is taking all steps in pursuance of the same and undertakes to abide by all directions passed by this Tribunal.
13. Further, the answering respondent submits that vide letter dated 01.12.2020 the Answering Respondent has issued a response to the State Pollution Control Board on the direction issued by it under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1974. The answering respondent has, inter alia, clarified that the answering respondent is not responsible for establishment of CETP for the industrial units of industrial area, Chopanki and Kaharani. The answering respondent submits that it has sought a withdrawal of the said directions since the State Pollution Control Board responsible for taking action against defaulting units, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter issued by the answering respondent. Copy of the letter dated 01.12.2020 issued by the answering respondent is marked and annexed.
14. In Compliance of the order dated 06.07.2020, the report by the Joint Committee consisting Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Board has been filed. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 has submitted that the Status Report by the Respondent No. 3, Rajasthan State Industrial Development Investment Corporation has been filed, but the report submitted by the Joint Committee has not been made available. The Learned Counsel for the State Pollution Control Board is directed to provide the copy of the report to Respondent No.3, who in turn may file the response within 10 days. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant has submitted that some time should be provided to file response/objection. The same may be filed within 10 days.
15. Applicant Dr. Laxman Ragav is present in person and submitted that the ground water of the area has been severely polluted and the habitant of the area are using the bottled water. He has also submitted that the joint report filed by the committee is in collusion with industries or directly or indirectly have been influenced by ulterior motive. He has raised various 6 serious grievances of local residents with regard to problem of availability of drinking water.
16. It is to be noted that well known causes of pollution of water bodies, underground water is discharge of untreated water by the industries and dumping of untreated sewage and diversion to river/water bodies. Inspite of the directions to install Effluent Treatment Plants (ETPs), Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs), Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) and adopting other anti pollution measures, satisfactory situation has not been achieved. Tough Governance is the need of the hour. If pollution does not stop, it is high time to take strong remedial action including penal action and even stoppage of industries, if human beings are to survive. If sewage dumping does not stop, local bodies have to made accountable and their heads are to be prosecuted.
17. We may refer to the observation of this Tribunal passed in O.A. 148/2016 Mahesh Chandra Saxena vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. where considering the report of the CPCB, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal issued certain guidelines for assessment and realization of Environmental Compensation (EC). The Relevant paras are quoted here below :-
II. Environmental Compensation to be levied on all violations of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) in NCR.
Table No. 2.1: Environmental to be levied on all violations of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) in Delhi-NCR.
Activity State Of Air Environmental
Quality Compensation ()
Industrial Emissions Severe +/Emergency Rs 1.0 Crore
Severe Rs 50 Lakh
Very Poor Rs 25 Lakh
Moderate to Poor Rs 10 Lakh
Vapour Recovery System (VRS) at Outlets of Oil Companies i. Notin Target Date Rs 1.0 Crore stalled ii. Non functional Very poor to Severe + Rs 50.0 Lakh 7 Moderate to Poor Rs 25.0 Lakh Construction sites Severe +/Emergency Rs 1.0 Crore Severe Rs 50 Lakh (Offending plot Very Poor Rs 25 Lakh more than 20,000 Sq.m.) Moderate to Poor Rs 10 Lakh Solid waste/ Very poor to Severe + Rs 25.0 Lakh garbage dumping in Industrial Estates Moderate to Poor Rs 10.0 Lakh Failure to water sprinkling on unpaved roads
a) Hot-spots Very poor to Severe + Rs 25.0 Lakh
b) Other than Hot-
Very poor to Severe + Rs 10.0 Lakh
spots
II. Environmental Compensation to be levied in case of failure of preventing the pollutants being discharged in water bodies and failure to implement waste management rules:
Table No. 3.3: Minimum and Maximum EC to be levied for untreated/partially treated sewage discharge Class of the City/Town Mega-City Million- Class-I plus City City/Town and others Minimum and Min. 2000 Min. 1000 Min. 100 Maximum values of EC (Total Capital Max. 20000 Max. 10000 Max. 1000 Cost Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Minimum and Min. 2 Min. 1 Min. 0.5 Maximum values of EC (O&M Cost Component) Max. 20 Max. 10 Max. 5 recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs./day) Table No. 3.4: Minimum and Maximum EC to be levied for improper municipal solid waste management Class of the Mega-City Million- Class-I City/Town plus City City/Town and others Minimum and Min. Min. 500 Min. 100 Maximum values of 1000 Max. Max. 1000 EC (Capital Cost Max. 5000 Component) 10000 recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Minimum and Min. 1.0 Min. 0.5 Min. 0.1 Maximum values Max. Max. 5.0 Max. 1.0 of EC (O&M 10.0 Cost Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs./day) 8 3.3 Environment Compensation for Discharge of Untreated/Partially Treated Sewage by Concerned Individual/ Authority:
BIS 15-1172:1993 suggests that for communities with population above 100,000, minimum of 150 to 200 lpcd of water demand is to be supplied. Further, 85% of return rate (CPHEEO Manual on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment Systems, 2013}, may be considered for calculation of total sewage generation in a city. CPCB Report on "Performance evaluation of sewage treatment plants under NRCD, 2013", describes that the capital cost for 1 MLD STP ranges from 0.63 Cr. to 3 Cr. and O&M cost is around Rs. 30,000 per month. After detail deliberations, the Committee suggested to assume capital cost for STPs as Rs. 1.75 Cr/MLD (marginal average cost). Further, expected cost for conveyance system is assumed as Rs. 5.55 Cr./MLD (marginal average cost) and annual O&M cost as 10% of the combined capital cost. Population of the city may be taken as per the latest Census of India. Based on these assumptions, Environmental Compensation to be levied on concerned ULB may be calculated with the following formula:
EC= Capital Cost Factor x [Marginal Average Capital Cost for Treatment Facility x (Total Generation-Installed Capacity) + Marginal Average Capital Cost for Conveyance Facility x (Total Generation - Operational Capacity)] + O&M Cost Factor x Marginal Average O&M Cost x (Total Generation- Operational Capacity) x No. of Days for which facility was not available + Environmental Externality x No. of Days for which facility was not available Alternatively;
EC (Lacs Rs.)= [17.S{Total Sewage Generation - Installed Treatment Capacity)+
55.S {Total Sewage Generation - perational Capacity)] + 0.2(Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity) x N + Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality x (Total Sewage Generation-
Operational Capacity) X N Where; N= Number of days from the date of direction of CPCB/SPCB/PCC till the required capacity systems are provided by the concerned authority Quantity of Sewage is in MLD Table No. 3.5: Sample calculation for EC to be levied for discharge of untreated/partial treated Sewage 9 Delhi Agra Gurugra Ambala City m 17,60,285 Population (2011) 1,63,49,831 8,76,969 5,00,774 Class Mega-City Million-plus City Class-I Class-I Town Town Sewage Generation 4195 381 486 37 (MLD) (as per the latest data available with CPCB) Installed Treatment 2500 220 404 45.5 Capacity (MLD) (as per the latest data available with CPCB) Operational Capacity 1900 140 300 24.5 (MLD) (as per the latest data available with CPCB) Treatment Capacity 2295 241 186 12.5 Gap (MID) Calculated EC 29662.50 2817.50 1435.00 0.00 (capital cost component for STPs) in Lacs Rs.
Calculated EC 127372.50 13375.50 10323.00 693.75 (capital cost component for Conveyance System) in Lacs. Rs.
Calculated EC (Total 157035.00 16193.00 11758.00 693.75 capital cost component) in Lacs Rs.
Minimum and Min. 2000 Min. 1000 Min. Min. 100 Maximum values Max. 20000 Max. 10000 100 Max. 1000 of Max. 1000 EC (Total Capital Cost Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Final EC (Total 20000.00 10000.00 1000.00 693.75 Capital Cost Component) in Lacs Rs. Calculated EC 459.00 48.20 37.20 2.50 (O&M Component in Lacs Rs./day Minimum and Min. 2 Min. 1 Min. 0.5 Min. 0.5 Maximum values Max. 20 Max. 10 Max. 5 Max. 5 of EC (O&M Cost Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs./day) 10 Final EC (O&M 20.00 10.00 5.00 2.50 Component) in Lacs. Rs./Day Calculated 2.0655 0.2049 0.1395 0.0094 Environmental Externality (Lacs Rs .Per Day) Minimum and Min. 0.60 Min. 0.25 Min. Min. 0.05 Maximum value of Max. 0.80 Max. 0.35 0.05 Max. 0.10 Environmental Max. Externality 0.10 recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs. Per Day) Final Environmental 0.80 0.25 0.10 0.05 Externality (Lacs Rs. Per day)
3.4 Environment Compensation to be Levied on Concerned Individual/Authority for Improper Solid Waste Management:
Environmental Compensation to be levied on concerned ULB may be calculated with the following formula:
EC = Capital Cost Factor x Marginal Average Cost for Waste Management x (Per day waste generation-Per day waste disposed as per the Rules) + O&M Cost Factor x Marginal Average O&M Cost x (Per day waste generation-Per day waste disposed as per the Rules) x Number of days violation took place + Environmental Externality x N Wh e r e ;
Waste Quantity in tons per day (TPD) N= Number of days from the date of direction of CPCB/SPCB/PCC till the required capacity systems are provided by the concerned authority Simplifying;
EC (Lacs Rs.) = 2.4(Waste Generation - Waste Disposed as per the Rules) +0.02 (Waste Generation - Waste Disposed as per the Rules) x N + Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality x (Waste Generation - Waste Disposed as per the Rules) x N Table No. 3.6: Sample calculation forEC to be levied for improper management of Municipal Solid Waste of Illegal Extraction of Ground Water 11 City Delhi Agra Gurugram Ambala Population 1,63,49,83 17,60,285 8,76,969 5,00,774 (2011) 1 Class Mega-City Million- Class-I Class-I plus Town Town City Waste Generation 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 (kg. per person per day) Waste Generation (TPD) 9809.90 880.14 350.79 200.31 Waste Disposal as 2452.47 220.04 87.70 50.08 per Rules (TPD) (assumed as 25% of waste generation for sample calculation) Waste Management 7357.42 660.11 263.09 150.23 Capacity Gap (TPD) Calculated EC 17657.82 1584.26 631.42 360.56 (capital cost component) in Lacs. Rs.
Minimum and Min. 1000 Min. 500 Min. 100 Min. 100 Maximum values of Max. 10000 Max. 5000 Max. 1000 Max. 1000 EC (Capital Cost Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Final EC (capital 10000.00 1584.26 631.42 360.56 cost component) in Lacs. Rs.
Calculated EC 147.15 13.20 5.26 3.00 (O&M Component) in Lacs.
Rs./Day Minimum and Min. 1.0 Min. 0.5 Min. 0.1 Min. 0.1 Maximum values of Max. 10.0 Max. 5.0 Max. 1.0 Max. 1.0 EC (O&M Cost Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs./Day) Final EC (O&M Component) in 10.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 Lacs. Rs./Day Calculated 2.58 0.18 0.03 0.02 Environmental Externality (Lacs Rs. Per Day) Minimum and Max. 0.80 Min. 0.25 Min. 0.01 Min. 0.01 Maximum value of Max. 0.35 Max. 0.05 Max. 0.05 Environmental Externality recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs. per day) 12
18. After considering the report of CPCB, the Tribunal directed as under:
"Directions
21. We may now sum up our directions:
(i) The Environmental compensation regime fixed for industrial units, GRAP, solid waste, sewage and ground water in the report dated 30.05.2019 is accepted and the same may be acted upon as an interim measure.
(ii) SPCBs/PCCs may ensure remedial action against non- compliant CETPs or individual industries in terms of not having ETPs/fully compliant ETPs or operating without consent or in violation of consent conditions. This may be overseen by the CPCB. CPCB may continue to compile information on this subject and furnish quarterly reports to this Tribunal which may also be uploaded on its website.
(iii) All the Local Bodies and or the
concerned departments of the State
Government have to ensure 100%
treatment of the generated sewage and in default to pay compensation which is to be recovered by the States/UTs, with effect from 01.04.2020. In default of such collection, the States/UTs are liable to pay such compensation. The CPCB is to collect the same and utilize for restoration of the environment.
(iv) The CPCB needs to collate the available data base with regard to ETPs, CETPs, STPs, MSW facilities, Legacy Waste sites and prepare a river basin-wise macro picture in terms of gaps and needed interventions.
(v) The Chief Secretaries of all the
States/UTs may furnish their
13
respective compliance reports on this subject also in O.A. No. 606/2018.
List for further consideration on 21.05.2020, unless required earlier. A copy of this order be placed on the file of O.A. No. 606/2018 relating to all States/UTs and be sent to Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs, Secretary MoEF&CC, Secretary Jal Shakti and Secretary, MoHUA.
(emphasis supplied)
8. Before proceeding further, we may also note further order of this Tribunal dated 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018 directing as follows:
"XII. Directions:
47. We now sum up our directions as follows:
i. 100% treatment of sewage may be ensured as directed by this Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 by 31.03.2020 atleast to the extent of in-situ remediation and before the said date, commencement of setting up of STPs and the work of connecting all the drains and other sources of generation of sewage to the STPs must be ensured. If this is not done, the local bodies and the concerned departments of the States/UTs will be liable to pay compensation as already directed vide order dated 22.08.2019 in the case of river Ganga i.e. Rs. 5 lakhs per month per drain, for default in in-situ remediation and Rs. 5 lakhs per STP for default in commencement of setting up of the STP.
ii. Timeline for completing all steps of action plans including completion of setting up STPs and their commissioning till 31.03.2021 in 14 terms of order dated 08.04.2019 in the present case will remain as already directed. In default, compensation will be liable to be paid at the scale laid down in the order of this Tribunal dated 22.08.2019 in the case of river Ganga i.e. Rs. 10 lakhs per month per STP.
iii. We further direct that an institutional mechanism be evolved for ensuring compliance of above directions. For this purpose, monitoring may be done by the Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs at State level and at National level by the Secretary, Ministry of Jal Shakti with the assistance of NMCG and CPCB.
iv. For above purpose, a meeting at central level must be held with the Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs atleast once in a month (option of video conferencing facility is open) to take stock of the progress and to plan further action. NMCG will be the nodal agency for compliance who may take assistance of CPCB and may give its quarterly report to this Tribunal commencing 01.04.2020.
v. The Chief Secretaries may set up appropriate monitoring mechanism at State level specifying accountability of nodal authorities not below the Secretary level and ensuring appropriate adverse entries in the ACRs of erring officers. Monitoring at State level must take place on fortnightly basis and record of progress maintained. The Chief Secretaries may have an accountable person attached in his office for this purpose.
15
vi. Monthly progress report may be
furnished by the States/UTs to
Secretary, Ministry of Jal Shakti with a copy to CPCB. Any default must be visited with serious consequences at every level, including initiation of prosecution, disciplinary action and entries in ACRs of the erring officers. vii. As already mentioned, procedures for DPRs/tender process needs to be shortened and if found viable business model developed at central/state level.
viii.Wherever work is awarded to any contractor, performance guarantee must be taken in above terms.
ix. CPCB may finalize its recommendations for action plans relating to P-III and P-IV as has been done for P-I and P-II on or before 31.03.2020. This will not be a ground to delay the execution of the action plans prepared by the States which may start forthwith, if not already started.
x. The action plan prepared by the Delhi Government which is to be approved by the CPCB has to follow the action points delineated in the order of this Tribunal dated 11.09.2019 in O.A. No. 06/2012.
xi. Since the report of the CPCB has focused only on BOD and FC without other parameters for analysis such as pH, COD, DO and other recalcitrant toxic pollutants having tendency of bio magnification, a survey may now be 16 conducted with reference to all the said parameters by involving the SPCB/PCCs within three months. Monitoring gaps be identified and upgraded so to cover upstream and downstream locations of major discharges to the river. CPCB may file a report on the subject before the next date by e-mail at [email protected] xii. Rivers which have been identified as clean may be maintained."
19. The natural source of Air, Water and Soil cannot be utilized, if the utilization results in irreversible damage to environment. There has been accelerated degradation of the environment, primarily on account of lack of effective enforcement of environmental laws and non- compliance with statutory norms. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it includes the right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life.
20. The Applicant in person further stated that the joint report does not depicts the true picture of water quality of the area, and further submitted that the water quality should be examined by an expert external bodies. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that he wants to file response about the report for which time has already been granted and this question may be considered on the next date after hearing the parties.
21. I.A No. 69/2020 has been filed by the Applicant with a prayer that fresh notice should be issued to all respondents and with further direction to CPCB to inspect the place and examine the water quality and submit the report. Since, the report has already been filed, thus, the matter can be taken after hearing the parties on the next date. So far as the prayer for issuing of notice is concerned, Applicant is 17 directed to take necessary steps for issue of notice and provide the copy of the application and relevant documents to all Respondents with direction to them, to file their reply / counter affidavit within fortnight through E-filing, email at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
22. In the meantime, Regional Officer, RSPCB is directed to submit the report with regard to the water quality in the industrial cluster mentioned above.
Put up with the report, reply and response on 13th August, 2021.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Arun Kumar Verma, EM 15th July 2021 OA No.11/2020(CZ) with I.A. No. 69/2020 PN & K 18