National Green Tribunal
M C Mehta vs Union Of India on 17 April, 2017
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL,
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 200/2014
(C.W.P. No. 3727/1985)
And
Original Application No. 501 of 2014
(M.A. No. 404 of 2015)
And
Original Application No. 146 of 2015
And
Appeal No. 63 of 2015
And
Original Application No. 127 of 2017
And
Original Application No. 133/2017
(W.P. (C) No. 200/2013)
IN THE MATTER OF : -
M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors.
And
Anil Kumar Singhal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
And
Society for Protection of Environment & Biodiversity & Anr.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
And
Confederation of Delhi Industries & CETP Societies
(An Organisation of CETP Societies)
Vs.
D.P.C.C. & Ors.
And
J.K. Srivastava Vs. Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.
And
Swami Gyan Swarop Sanand Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. BIKRAM SINGH SAJWAN, EXPERT MEMBER HON'BLE DR. AJAY A. DESHPANDE, EXPERT MEMBER HON'BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER Present Applicant: Mr. M.C. Mehta and Ms. Mehak Rastogi, Advs.
Mr. Utkarsh Jain, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay and Mr. Salik Shafique, Advs. for Indian Chemical Council and Jubilant Rite Sciences Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Dhayani, Advs. for UPPCB Mr. Rahul Pratap and Mr. Anupam, Advs. for MoEF Mr. B.V. Niren, Adv. for CGSC and CGWA Mr. Mukesh Verma and Mr. Bikash Kumar Sinha, Advs. Mr. I.K. Kapila, Adv. for UP Jal Nigam, Kanpur Jal Sansthan and Kanpur Nagar Nigam along with EE Panpur and SE Coord. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Mr. S.A. Zaidi and Mansi Chahal, Advs. for Leather Industries.
Ms. Priyanka Sinha, Adv. for State of Jharkhand Ms. Panchajanya Batra Singh, Adv for Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change with Mr. R.N. Jindal, Scientist, Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change 1 Mr. Ni5khil Nayyar and Mr. Smriti Shah, Advs. for APPCB Ms. Antima Bajaj, Adv. for AIDA & for Jain Distillery Mr. Suraj Prakash Singh and Ms. Pushpila Bisht, Advs. for UPSMA and AIDA Mr. Atul Batra, and Mr. Kundan, Advs. for Mother Dairy, Pilakhua Unit Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. For State of Uttarakhand Mr. V.K. Shukla, Adv. for State of MP Mr. Dinesh Jindal, LO, Delhi Pollution Control Committee Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv. for State of Uttar Pradesh Mr. Amit agarwal, and Ms. Asha Basu, Advs. for State of West Bengal Mr. Ishwer Singh, Adv. with Mr. Sandeep, Director (Tech.), NMCG and Mr. M. Kumar Ajitabh, Project Officer-Legal, NMCG Mr. Gautam Singh and Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Advs. for State of Bihar and BSPCB Ms. Neelam Rathore and Ms. Bhawna Gera, Advs. for Association of Textile Processor & Uttar Pradesh Dyes & Bleachers Associations (Micro & Small) & MLA Group & Chamber of Indian Trade & Industry Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Adv. and Mr. Dinesh Jindal, LO Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Adv. for R-10 & 11 Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri, Adv. for CECB Mr. Ravi P. Mehrotra and Mr. Abhinav Kr. Malik, Advs. for UPSIDC Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv. for JSPCB Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, Adv. and Mr. Dinesh Jindal, LO, Delhi Pollution Control Committee Mr. Taruna A. Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Rajkumar, Adv. & Mr. Bhupendra Shahi, LA, CPCB Dr. A.B. Akolkar, Member Secretary, CPCB Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. for Mr. Moni Cinmoy, Adv. for DSIIDC Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Adv. for Noticee No. 9 - M/s. Tara API India Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Adv.
Date and Orders of the Tribunal Remarks Item No. 34 to 39
The special Bench has been constituted to hear the April 17, 2017 Ganga Matter on day-to-day basis. The scope of the entire ss Project in relation to the Segment `A' and Segment `B' of Phase-I has been discussed with the stakeholders in the Court as well as in the Chamber meeting of high officials from all the stakeholders in the Chamber meeting held on 11th April, 2017.
At the threshold we have asked the Learned counsel appearing for any of the stakeholders i.e. MoEF, Ministry of Water Resources, National Mission for Clean Ganga, 2 Central Pollution Control Board, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Item No. 34 to 39 Control Board, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Kanpur Nagar April 17, Nigam and State of Uttar Pradesh to raise any contention 2017 with regard to scope of project that was discussed in ss relation of all facets of prevention and control of pollution and rejuvenation of river Ganga particularly in Segment `B' of Phase-I. The Learned counsel appearing for Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board submits that there should be issue specific directions by the Tribunal in relation to the Societies, Builders, Developers and even the State Colonies which are being developed in different areas, particularly near and closer to rivers, should have their own STP which will treat the sewage and other waste to the prescribed standards. There should be complete mechanism for dealing with the municipal solid waste, recycling of treated water and strict adherence to pollution control norms wherever applicable.
Secondly, he contends that the industries particularly tannery industries located at Jajmau should either be shifted, if not shifted then, the same should be under strict vigilance and supervision. The industries which have their own Chromium Recovery Plant and if they do not operate it, then they should be directed to be closed for a short period and subsequently, for a longer period. Similarly all other defaulting industries should also be penalized from time to time. Effective systems should be provided to treat effluents by establishment of new CETP, Chromium Recovery Plant, carriage and 3 management of sludge generated.
Item No. 34 to 39 It is stated on behalf of Uttar Pradesh Pollution April 17, 2017 Control Board that the new CETP i.e. ZLD, is not a desired ss solution as it would generate salt of the capacity which will be very difficult to store and handle and even failed to create a market for reuse, even if the 70% of the generated salt can be converted to sodium salts which is saleable by itself. It is further submitted that ZLD based CETP will not be economically viable as well.
According to Central Pollution Control Board they are technology neutral, however according to them new CETP to be established i.e. ZLD will be technically acceptable and can operate efficiently as well as practically to prevent pollution. Technological - in terms of workability and practicability, the Board supports CETP with ZLD, however economically it will have to be examined.
According to the MoWR and National Mission for Clean Ganga the new CEPT should be with the improved technology and should be ZLD. According to them, ZLD is practical, technologically sound and a reasonably good solution for prevention and control of pollution. It is also stated that the Chennai, ZLD experience of Tannery industries is not proved very successful as far as disposal of salt is concerned and quantum of salt that it will generate is a very serious problem as of today. However to the large extent, this could be addressed by improvement of the technology. The technology that should be adopted 4 can be that of the ultra-filteration and nano-filteration. Item No. 34 to 39 After certain arguments, the Central Pollution April 17, 2017 Control Board wishes to take stand that keeping in view of ss the proposed three pipeline system, Chromium Recovery Plant and establishment of new CETP and dealing with the sludge separately, it will be more advisable and scientifically workable as opposed to ZLD, if the treated CETP effluent is further diluted with treated sewage and used for irrigation purposes. However, according to the MoWR and National Mission for Clean Ganga, ZLD still would be a better option.
According to the MoWR and National Mission for Clean Ganga, it should be seriously pondered over the 10 mg/l, 10 mg/l and 230 MPN standards for BOD, Suspended Solid and Faecal Coliform respectively. The proposed standards need to be considered before they are notified, keeping in view the necessity of imposing of such stringent standards and economic viability.
The Central Pollution Control Board is of the opinion that these standards should be enforced in the interest of prevention and control of pollution.
According to the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and Kanpur Nagar Nigam, the dilution system as above should be preferred to ZLD in relation to the new CETP in view of economic principles, practical and land availability.
None of the stakeholders wish to say anything more in any aspect of the case being heard by the Tribunal. Therefore, we will proceed to examine the integrities of the 5 projects. We pass the following directions for immediate Item No. 34 to 39 compliance and without default:-
April 17, 2017 1. The MoEF, the MoWR and the Central Pollution ss Control Board will take a clear stand which they were expected to inform the Tribunal today in relation to minimum environmental flow of river Ganga in Segment `B'.
2. Extraction of groundwater in this sector.
3. We direct the CEO, TWIC - Tamil Nadu Water Investment Company; Director, Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI); Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and Professor T. Ramaswamy, Former Secretary, Government of India, Science and Technology to be present for a Chamber meeting with the Tribunal on 21st April, 2017 at 02:30 P.M. The Registry will communicate the order of the Tribunal to all the concerned immediately. The Chamber meeting would be held on 21st April, 2017.
The MoWR and Namami Gange has not filed any document as were prayed for, they must do the needful, if they so desire, positively by 21st April, 2017.
List these matters on 19th April, 2017.
..........................................,CP (Swatanter Kumar) ..........................................,JM (Dr. Jawad Rahim) ..........................................,JM (Raghuvendra S. Rathore) 6 Item No. 34 to 39 ..........................................,EM April 17, (Bikram Singh Sajwan) 2017 ss ..........................................,EM (Dr. Ajay A. Deshpande) ..........................................,EM (Dr. Nagin Nanda) 7