National Green Tribunal
Maj Gen Harpreet Singh Bedi (Retd) vs Shri Vijay Singh on 21 September, 2020
Item No. 04(Bhopal Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 61/2020 (CZ)
Maj. Gen. Harpreet Singh Bedi (Retd.) & Ors. Applicant(s)
Versus
Shri Vijay Singh, Dwarkadheesh Haveli Builders
& Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 21.09.2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAWAN SINGH GARBYAL, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant (s) : Maj. Gen. Harpreet Singh Bedi (Retd.), Applicant
in person
For Respondent(s): Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Advocate
Mr. Om S. Shrivastava, Advocate
ORDER
1. This is in continuation of the order passed by this Tribunal on 17.08.2020. The issue of untreated water / sewage water being discharged in open place, supply of contaminated water, presence of strong ammonia in the water, construction of building without environmental compensation or required permission by the Competent Authority, without consent to operate under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 were raised and this Tribunal vide order as above constituted a Committee consisting the Collector, Bhopal and Municipal Commissioner, Bhopal and Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board to submit a factual and action taken report.
19 8
2. The Joint Committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows:
"Before visit to the site the committee discussed the details of the order and the responsibility entrusted to the committee by Honourable National Green Tribunal the contents of the order. As per para 11 of the order dated 17/08/2020 "The Committee is directed to visit the place and submit the action taken report within four weeks. The State PCB will be the nodal agency for coordination and logistic support." Further the Hon'ble NGT in para 14 directed the committee "We also direct the committee to submit a report on the following points:-
(i) The total no of drains were untreated/Sewage water is being discharged in the lake or river bodies in Bhopal.
(ii) Total no of STPs installed there.
(iii) Quantity of water being used by the residents in the city of Bhopal.
(iv) Total capacity to treated the water.
(v) The gape between the used and capacity to treat.
(vi) Future planning of Municipality to meet out the gape and make proper arrangements for treatment of the water.
(vii) Action taken against the polluters who are discharging the water, sewage & untreated water in to the river bodies & causing water pollution & contaminating the underground water.
(viii) It is directed that Municipal authorities to ensure that no solid waste be thrown in to the open space and there should be no discharge of untreated/sewage water in to the water bodies or in the open space & any one violating the norms and any violation of this order should be taken seriously in accordance with the order passed by the principal bench of this tribunal in O.A. No. 148/2016: Mahesh Chandra Saxena v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. Vide order dated 21.05.2020...."
Applicant Shri. Major General H.S. Bedi & Ors. Office bearer of Dwarkadham Resident Welfare Society, Bhopal explained the matter to the committee members and informed that STP of Township is not commissioned till date even after the handing over of apartments to the residents welfare society. Shri Bedi informed the steps taken by him to raise the issue before the developer and various government organizations. The committee took the bird eye view of the area from top of the one of the tower in the colony and observed that STP is totally defunct and lots of 2 bushes/grass was grown around it. The committee also observed that stinking untreated sewage was found in stagnant condition near STP and in open land besides the applicants residence block. Shri Bedi also informed that due to stagnation of untreated sewage nearby the tube well supplying water to their building is contaminated it is verified from water analysis report obtained from Local Laboratory.
Further, PCB Officials, informed that the developer has not obtained consent to establish from MPPCB and EC from SEIAA hence its application was rejected. In response to the complaint dated 20.05.2020 made by the applicant in the Board, the Officers from Regional Office, MPPCB Bhopal inspected site on 23.05.2020 and found that the complaint is right & based on the observations, M.P. Pollution Control Board issued show cause notice dated 22.07.2020 to the developer (Annexure-III) under section 15 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 & under section 33-A of Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 & 31A of Air (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981 and due to inaction by developer, a criminal case is filed against the developer in the court of Judicial Magistrate (I), Bhopal, on 31/08/2020 under section 15 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 & under section 25 & 44 of Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 & 37 & 39 of Air (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981. (Annexure-IV) As per the details sought by Hon'ble NGT as per para 14, the information provided by Municipal Corporation Bhopal to Additional District Magistrate Bhopal is as per Annexure-V. Regional Office, M.P. Pollution Control Board has filed 54 Criminal cases against Polluter (Building Project) in Bhopal Region under Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 which are under consideration in Honorable Lower Court at Bhopal Recommendations: After detailed site visit and discussions, following are the recommendations: --
1. Project Proponent shall immediately stop the water supply from the polluted bore well and seal the same.
2. Project proponent to make alternate safe water supply arrangements for affected residents.
3. Project Proponent shall obtain environmental clearance from SEIAA MP under EIA Notification, 2006.
4. Project Proponent shall obtain consent to establish and consent to operate from State Pollution Control Board under section 25 of Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 & 21 of Air (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981.
35. The projection proponent shall rectify the STP on priority and make it functional at the earliest.
6. Project Proponent shall immediately clear the blockage of drain/nallah for free flow of water.
Action Taken Report:
1. Project proponent has not obtained consent to establish and consent to operate from State Pollution Control Board under section 25 of Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 & 21 of Air (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981 hence Board has filed criminal case against the Project Proponent for violation of Environmental Laws (Annexure-IV).
2. District Administration has initiated action against Project Proponent under section 133 of CRPC 1973.
3. Details of the drains and future plan of the Municipal Corporation is as per Annexure-V."
3. It is surprising that the Project Proponent completed the building without any order of Competent Authority and without an environmental clearance within the capital of the State and the public functionaries to whom duties to control the illegal construction and illegal discharge of contaminated untreated sewage water are entrusted failed to monitor and check it. The Regional Officer of State Pollution Control Board also failed to exercise his duty to take immediate action and also failed to calculate the environmental compensation which was to be realised by the Board according to law. It reflects that the authorities are indirectly permitting the illegal construction, illegal extraction of groundwater without the valid permission of Central Ground Water Authority and it is complete negation of rule of law.
4. When the law protector becomes the law violators, how law will be protected. The basic principle of rule of law is to follow rule/ law and not to break or violate it. For the negligence of those to whom public duties have been entrusted can never be allowed to cause public mischief.4
Public servants if committing wrong in discharge of statutory functions and later on if it was found not be in accordance with law within the knowledge of the officer concerned then it cannot be said to be the work and duty within the definition of State Act.
5. Statutory rules are required to be observed. It is settled law that when the action of the State or its instrumentalities is not as per the rules or regulations and supported by a statute, the Court must exercise its jurisdiction to declare such an act to be illegal and invalid.
In Sirsi Municipality Vs. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis, AIR 1973 SC 855, the Supreme Court observed that "the ratio is that the rules or the regulations are binding on the authorities."
Similarly, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh & Ors. Vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 1331, has observed as under:-
"The statutory authorities cannot deviate from the conditions of service. Any deviation will be enforced by legal sanction of declaration by Courts to invalidate actions in violation of rules and regulations. The existence of rules and regulations under statute is to ensure regular conduct with a distinctive attitude to that conduct as a standard. The statutory regulations in the cases under consideration give the employees a statutory status and impose restrictions on the employer and the employee with no option to vary the conditions............In cases of statutory bodies there is no personal element whatsoever because of the impersonal character of statutory bodies..............the element of public employment or service and the support of statute require observance of rules and regulations. Failure to observe requirements by statutory bodies is enforced by courts by declaring (action) in violation of rules and regulations to be void. This Court has repeatedly observed that whenever a man's rights are affected by decision taken under statutory powers, the Court would presume the existence of a duty to observe the rules of natural justice and compliance with rules and regulations imposed by statute." (Emphasis added).5
6. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Ambica Quarry Works etc. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1073; and Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16.
In both the cases, the Apex Court relied upon the judgment of the House of Lord in Julius Vs. Lord Bishop of Oxford, (1880) 5 AC 214, wherein it was observed as under:-
"There may be something in the nature of thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person in whom the power is reposed, to exercise that power when called upon to do so."
In Commissioner of Police (supra), the Apex Court observed as under:-
"Public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them, and persons to whose detriment orders are made are entitled to know with exactness and precision what they are expected to do or forbear from doing and exactly what authority is making the order.........An enabling power of this kind conferred for public reasons and for the public benefit is, in our opinion, coupled with a duty to exercise it when the circumstances so demand. It is a duty which cannot be shirked or shelved nor it be evaded, performance of it can be compelled."
In Dr. Meera Massey Vs. Dr. S.R. Mehrotra & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1153, the Apex Court observed as under:-
"If the laws and principles are eroded by such institutions, it not only pollutes its functioning deteriorating its standard but also exhibits............wrong channel adopted..........If there is any erosion or descending by those who control the activities all expectations and hopes are destroyed. If the institutions perform dedicated and sincere service with the highest morality it would not only up-lift many but bring back even a limping society to its normalcy."
The Supreme Court has taken the same view in Ram Chand & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 44, and held that "the exercise of power should not be made against the spirit of the provisions of the statute, otherwise it would tend towards arbitrariness."
A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit 6 Singh (II) Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (1999) 7 SCC 209 held that any action being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution is arbitrary and if it is found to be de hors the statutory rules, the same cannot be enforced.
7. Therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court that whenever any action of the authority is in violation of the provisions of the statute or the action is constitutionally illegal, it cannot claim any sanctity in law, and there is no obligation on the part of the Court to sanctify such an illegal act. Wherever the statuary provision is ignored, the Court cannot become a silent spectator to such an illegal act, and it becomes the solemn duty of the Court to deal with the persons violating the law with heavy hands. (Vide R.N. Nanjundappa Vs. T. Thimmaiah & Anr., AIR 1972 SC 1767; B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1676; Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 789;
State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Sukanti Mohapatra & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 1650;
Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, M.P. Vs. Bal Kishan Soni & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 86; State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nodha Ram & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1445; Ashwani Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1628; State of M.P.& Anr. Vs. Dharam Bir, (1998) 6 SCC 165; Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur & Anr. Vs. Veer Singh Rajput & Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 258; Nazira Begum Lashkar & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 102; Mrs. Dr. Chanchal Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 1713; M.D., U.P. Land Development Corporation & Anr. Vs. Amar Singh & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2357; State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Tilak Raj & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2658; Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. Vs. Fakir Chand & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 4465; Sultan Sadik Vs. Sanjay Raj 7 Subba & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1377; and A. Umarani Vs. registrar, Co-
operative Societies & Ors., 2004 AIR SCW 4462).
8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that every statutory provision requires strict adherence, for the reason that the statute creates rights in favour of the citizens, and if any order is passed de hors the same, it cannot be held to be a valid order and cannot be enforced.
As the statutory provision creates legal rights and obligations for individuals, the statutory authorities are under a legal obligation to give strict adherence to the same and cannot pass an order in contravention thereof, treating the same to be merely decoration pieces in his office.
9. The matter of calculation of environmental compensation for discharge of untreated sewage water into the water bodies or in the open space and extraction of the groundwater without due permission from the Competent Authority has been dealt by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A No. 148/2016 vide order dated 21st May, 2020 which is as follows:
"
1. Proceedings in this matter are consequential to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 22.02.2017 in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti Vs. Union of India1 transferring the proceedings in W.P. (Civil) No. 375/2012 for monitoring compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme court. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court requires establishment and functioning of requisite ETPs/CETPs/STPs and in default to close industrial activities discharging effluents without treatment and to take action against local bodies for failing to install 1 (2017) 5 SCC 326 8 STPs and discharging sewage without treatment. Some of the observations in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are:
"7. Having effectuated the directions recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, the next step would be, to set up common effluent treatment plants. We are informed, that for the aforesaid purpose, the financial contribution of the Central Government is to the extent of 50%, that of the State Government concerned (including the Union Territory concerned) is 25%. The balance 25%, is to be arranged by way of loans from banks. The above loans, are to be repaid, by the industrial areas, and/or industrial clusters. We are also informed that the setting up of a common effluent treatment plant, would ordinarily take approximately two years (in cases where the process has yet to be commenced). The reason for the above prolonged period, for setting up "common effluent treatment plants", according to the learned counsel, is not only financial, but also, the requirement of land acquisition, for the same.
10. Given the responsibility vested in municipalities under Article 243-W of the Constitution, as also, in Item 6 of Schedule XII, wherein the aforesaid obligation, pointedly extends to "public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management", we are of the view that the onus to operate the existing common effluent treatment plants, rests on municipalities (and/or local bodies). Given the aforesaid responsibility, the municipalities (and/or local bodies) concerned, cannot be permitted to shy away from discharging this onerous duty. In case there are further financial constraints, the remedy lies in Articles 243-X and 243-Y of the Constitution. It will be open to the municipalities (and/or local bodies) concerned, to evolve norms to recover funds, for the purpose of generating finances to install and run all the "common effluent treatment plants", within the purview of the provisions referred to hereinabove. Needless to mention that such norms as may be evolved for generating financial resources, may include all or any of the commercial, industrial and domestic beneficiaries, of the facility. The process of evolving the above norms, shall be supervised by the State Government (Union Territory) concerned, through the Secretaries, Urban Development and Local Bodies, respectively (depending on the location of the respective common effluent treatment plant). The norms for generating funds for setting up and/or operating the "common effluent treatment 9 plant" shall be finalised, on or before 31-3-2017, so as to be implemented with effect from the next financial year. In case, such norms are not in place, before the commencement of the next financial year, the State Governments (or the Union Territories) concerned, shall cater to the financial requirements, of running the "common effluent treatment plants", which are presently dysfunctional, from their own financial resources.
11. Just in the manner suggested hereinabove, for the purpose of setting up of "common effluent treatment plants", the State Governments concerned (including, the Union Territories concerned) will prioritise such cities, towns and villages, which discharge industrial pollutants and sewer, directly into rivers and water bodies.
12. We are of the view that in the manner suggested above, the malady of sewer treatment, should also be dealt with simultaneously. We, therefore, hereby direct that "sewage treatment plants" shall also be set up and made functional, within the timelines and the format, expressed hereinabove.
13. We are of the view that mere directions are inconsequential, unless a rigid implementation mechanism is laid down. We, therefore, hereby provide that the directions pertaining to continuation of industrial activity only when there is in place a functional "primary effluent treatment plants", and the setting up of functional "common effluent treatment plants" within the timelines, expressed above, shall be of the Member Secretaries of the Pollution Control Boards concerned. The Secretary of the Department of Environment, of the State Government concerned (and the Union Territory concerned), shall be answerable in case of default. The Secretaries to the Government concerned shall be responsible for monitoring the progress and issuing necessary directions to the Pollution Control Board concerned, as may be required, for the implementation of the above directions. They shall be also responsible for collecting and maintaining records of data, in respect of the directions contained in this order. The said data shall be furnished to the Central Ground Water Authority, which shall evaluate the data and shall furnish the same to the Bench of the jurisdictional National Green Tribunal.
14. To supervise complaints of non-implementation of the instant directions, the Benches concerned of the National Green Tribunal, will maintain running and numbered case files, by dividing the jurisdictional area into units. The abovementioned 10 case files will be listed periodically. The Pollution Control Board concerned is also hereby directed to initiate such civil or criminal action, as may be permissible in law, against all or any of the defaulters."
(emphasis supplied)
6. We now refer to the observations of this Tribunal while considering the reports dated 30.05.2019 updated on 19.07.2019 and 14.08.2019:
"I. Report dated 30.05.2019 updated on 19.07.2019
13. According to updated report dated19.07.2019, out of 62,897 number of industries requiring ETPs, 60,944 industries are operating with functional ETPs and 1949 industries are operating without ETPs. 59,258 industries are complying with environmental standards and 1,524 industries are noncomplying. There are total 192 CETPs, out of which 133 CETPs are complying with environmental standards and 59 CETPs are non-complying. There are total 13,709 STPs (Municipal and other than municipal), out of which, 13,113 STPs are complying with environmental standards and 637 STPs are non-complying 73 CETPs in construction/proposal stage, whereas, for STPs, 1164 projects (municipal and non-municipal) are under construction/proposal stage.
14. A report has also been prepared on the scale of environmental compensation to be recovered from individual/authorities for causing pollution or failure for preventing causing pollution, apart from illegal extraction of ground water, failure to implement Solid waste Management Rules, damage to environment by mining and steps taken to explore preparation of an annual environmental plan for the country. Extracts from the report which are considered significant for this order are:
"I. Environment Compensation to be levied on Industrial Units Recommendations The Committee made following recommendations: 1.5.1 To begin with, Environmental Compensation may be levied by CPCB only when CPCB has issued the directions under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In case of a, band c, Environmental Compensation may be calculated based on the formula "EC= Pl x N x Rx S x LF", wherein, Pl may be taken as 80, 50 and 30 for red, orange and green category of industries, respectively, and R may be taken as
250. Sand LF may be taken as prescribed in the preceding paragraphs 11 1.5.2 In case of d, e and f, the Environmental Compensation may be levied based on the detailed investigations by Expert Institutions/Organizations.
1.5.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 22.02.2017 in the matter of Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and another v/s Union of India and others {Writ Petition {Civil) No. 375 of 2012), directed that all running industrial units which require "consent to operate" from concerned State Pollution Control Board, have a primary effluent treatment plant in place. Therefore, no industry requiring ETP, shall be allowed to operate without ETP. 1.5.4 EC is not a substitute for taking actions under EP Act, Water Act or Air Act. In fact, units found polluting should be closed/prosecuted as per the Acts and Rules.
II. Environmental Compensation to be levied on all violations of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) in NCR.
Table No. 2.1: Environmental Compensation to be levied on all violations of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) in Delhi-NCR.
Activity State Of Air Quality Environmental
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. Not Target Date Rs 1.0 Crore installed ii. Non functional Very poor to Severe + Rs 50.0 Lakh Moderate to Poor Rs 25.0 Lakh Construction sites Severe +/Emergency Rs 1.0 Crore Severe Rs 50 Lakh (Offending plot more Very Poor Rs 25 Lakh than 20,000 Sq.m.) Moderate to Poor Rs 10 Lakh Solid waste/ garbage Very poor to Severe + Rs 25.0 Lakh dumping in Industrial Estates Moderate to Poor Rs 10.0 Lakh Failure to water sprinkling on unpaved roads Very poor to Severe + Rs 25.0 Lakh
a) Hot-spots
b) Other than Hot-
Very poor to Severe + Rs 10.0 Lakh spots
. 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 12 Class of the City/Town Mega-City Million-plus Class-I City City/Town and others Minimum and Maximum Min. 2000 Min. 1000 Min. 100 values of EC (Total Capital Cost Component) Max. 20000 Max. 10000 Max. 1000 recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Minimum and Maximum Min. 2 Min. 1 Min. 0.5 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 City/Town Mega-City Million-plus Class-I City/Town City and others Minimum and Maximum Min. 1000 Min. 500 Min. 100 values of EC (Capital Max. 10000 Max. 5000 Max. 1000 Cost Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Minimum and Maximum Min. 1.0 Min. 0.5 Min. 0.1 values of EC (O&M Max. 10.0 Max. 5.0 Max. 1.0 Cost Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs./day) 3.3 Environment Compensation for Discharge of Untreated/Partially Treated Sewage by Concerned Individual/ Authority:
Committee BIS (Lacs Rs.) 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 13 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-Operational 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 City Delhi Agra Gurugram Ambala 17,60,285 Population (2011) 1,63,49,831 8,76,969 5,00,774 Class Mega-City Million-plus Class-I Town Class-I City Town Sewage Generation (MLD) (as 4195 381 486 37 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 (MLD) 1900 140 300 24.5 (as per the latest data available with CPCB) Treatment Capacity Gap 2295 241 186 12.5 (MID) 14 Calculated EC (capital cost 29662.50 2817.50 1435.00 0.00 component for STPs) in Lacs Rs.
Calculated EC (capital cost 127372.50 13375.50 10323.00 693.75 component for Conveyance System) in Lacs. Rs.
Calculated EC (Total capital 157035.00 16193.00 11758.00 693.75 cost component) in Lacs Rs.
Minimum and Maximum Min. 2000 Min. 1000 Min. 100 Min. 100 values of Max. 20000 Max. 10000 Max. 1000 Max. 1000 EC (Total Capital Cost Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Final EC (Total Capital Cost 20000.00 10000.00 1000.00 693.75 Component) in Lacs Rs.
Calculated EC (O&M 459.00 48.20 37.20 2.50 Component in Lacs Rs./day Minimum and Maximum Min. 2 Min. 1 Min. 0.5 Min. 0.5 values of Max. 20 Max. 10 Max. 5 Max. 5 EC (O&M Cost Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs./day) Final EC (O&M Component) 20.00 10.00 5.00 2.50 in Lacs. Rs./Day Calculated Environmental 2.0655 0.2049 0.1395 0.0094 Externality (Lacs Rs .Per Day) Minimum and Maximum Min. 0.60 Min. 0.25 Min. 0.05 Min. 0.05 value of Max. 0.80 Max. 0.35 Max. 0.10 Max. 0.10 Environmental Externality 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 15 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 Where;
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 for EC to be levied for improper management of Municipal Solid Waste City Delhi Agra Gurugram Ambala Population 1,63,49,831 17,60,285 8,76,969 5,00,774 (2011) Class Mega-City Million-plus Class-I Town Class-I City Town Waste Generation (kg. per 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 person per day) Waste Generation 9809.90 880.14 350.79 200.31 (TPD) Waste Disposal as per 2452.47 220.04 87.70 50.08 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 (capital 17657.82 1584.26 631.42 360.56 cost component) in Lacs. Rs.
Minimum and Maximum Min. 1000 Min. 500 Min. 100 Min. 100 values of EC Max. 10000 Max. 5000 Max. 1000 Max. 1000 (Capital Cost Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Final EC (capital cost 10000.00 1584.26 631.42 360.56 component) in Lacs. Rs.
16Calculated EC (O&M 147.15 13.20 5.26 3.00 Component) in Lacs.
Rs./Day Minimum and Maximum Min. 1.0 Min. 0.5 Min. 0.1 Min. 0.1 values of EC (O&M Max. 10.0 Max. 5.0 Max. 1.0 Max. 1.0 Cost Component) recommended by the Committee I(Lacs Rs./Day) V .
Final EC (O&M Component) in Lacs. 10.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 Rs./Day E Calculated Environmental n 2.58 0.18 0.03 0.02 Externality (Lacs Rs. Per Day)v i Minimum and r Maximum Max. 0.80 Min. 0.25 Min. 0.01 Min. 0.01 value of Max. 0.35 Max. 0.05 Max. 0.05 o Environmental Externality recommended nby the Committeem(Lacs Rs. per day) e Final Environmental n 0.80 0.25 0.03 0.02 Externality (Lacs Rs. per day) t a l Compensation in Case of Illegal Extraction of Ground Water 4.5 Formula for Environmental Compensation for illegal extraction of ground water The committee decided that the formula should be based on water consumption (Pump Yield & Time duration) and rates for imposing Environmental Compensation for violation of illegal abstraction of ground water. The committee has proposed following formula for calculation of Environmental Compensation (EC Gw):
ECGW = Water Consumption per Day x No. of Days x Environmental Compensation Rate for illegal extraction of ground water {ECRGw) Where water Consumption is in m 3 /day and ECRGw in Rs./m3 Yield of the pump varies based on the capacity/power of pump, water head etc. For reference purpose, yield of the pump may be assumed as given in Annexure-VI.
Time duration will be the period from which pump is operated illegally.
In case of illegal extraction of ground water, quantity of discharge as per the meter reading or as calculated with assumptions of yield and time may be used for calculation of EC Gw.17
4.6 Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGw) for illegal use of Ground Water:
The committee decided that the Environmental Compensation Rate (ECR Gw) for illegal extraction of ground water should increase with increase in water consumption as well as water scarcity in the area. Further, ECR Gw are kept relaxed for drinking and domestic use as compared to other uses, considering the basic need of human being.
As per CGWB, safe, semi-critical, critical and over- exploited areas are categorized from the ground water resources point of view (CGWB, 2017). List of safe, semi-critical, critical and over-exploited areas are available on the website of CGWB and can be accessed from- http://cgwa-
noc.gov.in/LandingPage/NotifiedAreas/Categorization0 fAssessmentUnits.pdf#ZOOM=150.
Environmental Compensation Rates (ECR G w) for illegal use of ground water (ECR G w) for various purposes such as drinking/domestic use, packaging units, mining and industrial sectors as finalized by the committee are given in tables below:
4.6.1 ECRGw for Drinking and Domestic use:
Drinking and Domestic use means uses of ground water in households, institutional activity, hospitals, commercial complexes, townships etc. Water Consumption (m3/day) SI. Area Category <2 2 to <5 5 to <25 25 & above No. Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGw) in Rs./m3 1 Safe 4 6 8 10 2 Semi Critical 12 14 16 20 3 Critical 22 24 26 30 4 Over-Exploited 32 34 36 40 Minimum ECGw=Rs 10,000/- (for households) and Rs. 50,000 (for institutional activity, commercial complexes, townships etc.) 4.6.2 ECRGw for Packaged drinking water units:
Water Consumption (m3/day) SI. Area Category <200 200 to <1000 1000 to <5000 5000 & No. Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGw) in above Rs./m3 1 Safe 12 18 24 30 2 Semi critical 24 36 48 60 3 Critical 36 48 66 90 4 Over-exploited 48 72 96 120 Minimum ECGw=Rs 1,00,000/-
4.6.3 ECRGw for Mining, Infrastructure and
Dewatering Projects
18
Water Consumption (m3/day)
SI. Area Category <200 200 to <1000 1000 to <5000 5000 &
No above
Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGw) in Rs./m 3 .1 Safe 15 21 30 40
2 Semi critical 30 45 60 75 3 Critical 45 60 85 115 4 Over-exploited 60 90 120 150 Minimum ECGw=Rs 1,00,000/-
4.6.4 ECRGw for Industrial Units:
Water Consumption (m3/day) SI. Area Category No. <200 200 to 1000 to <5000 5000 & <1000 above Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGw) in 1 Safe 20 30 Rs./m 40 3 50 2 Semi critical 40 60 80 100 3 Critical 60 80 110 150 4 Over-exploited 80 120 160 200 Minimum ECGw = Rs 1,00,000/-
4.8 Recommendations The committee has given following recommendations:
The minimum Environmental Compensation for illegal extraction of ground water for domestic purpose will be Rs. 10,000, for institutional/commercial use will be 50,000 and for other uses will be 1,00,000.
In case of fixation of liability, it always lies with current owner of the premises where illegal extraction is taking place. Time duration may be assumed to be one year in case where no evidence for period of installation of bore well could be established.
For Drinking and Domestic use, where metering is not present but storage tank facility is available, minimum water consumption per day may be assumed as similar to the storage capacity of the tank.
For industrial ground water use, where metering is not available, water consumption may be assumed as per the consent conditions. Further, where in case industry is operating without consent, water consumption may be calculated based on the plant capacity (on the recommendation of SPCB/PCC, if required). SPCB/PCC may bring the issue of illegal extraction of ground water in industries in to the notice of CGWA for appropriate action by CGWA.
Authorities assigned for levy EC and taking penal action are listed below:
S. No. Actions Authority
19
To seal
1. the illegal bore-well/tube- District Collector
well to stop extraction of water and
further closure of project
To levy
2. ECGw as per prescribed method District Collector,
To levy
3. EC on water pollution, as per CGWA
CPCB/SPCB/PCC
the method prescribed in report of
CPCB- "EC on industrial pollution"
Prosecution
4. of violator CGWA under EP Act
SPCB/PCC under
Air and Water Act
CGWA may maintain a separate account for collection and utilization of fund, collected through the prescribed methodology in this report."
"Discussion on the report dated 30.05.2019 updated on 19.07.2019
15. It is clear from the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court2 that the responsibility of operating STPs under Article 243W and item 6 of Schedule XII to the Constitution is of local bodies who have to evolve norms to recover funds for the purpose which is to be supervised by the States/UTs.
The norms were to be finalized upto 31.03.2017 to be implemented from the next year, i.e 01.04.2018. In absence thereof, the States/UTs have to cater to the financial requirement from its own resources. The States/UTs are to prioritize the cities, towns, villages discharging effluents/sewage directly into the water bodies. Industrial activity without proper treatment plants (ETPs and CETPs) is not to be allowed by the State PCBs and the Secretaries, Environment of the States/UTs are to be answerable. Thus, the source for financial resources for the STPs, stands finalized under the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Authorities and persons accountable are identified. Rigid implementation has been laid down. This Tribunal has been required to monitor compliance of the directions and timelines.
16. It is in this background that the present report needs to be appraised and further directions given. As regards the Environmental compensation regime fixed for industrial units, GRAP, solid waste, sewage and ground water is accepted as an interim measure. With regard to setting up of STPs, while we appreciate the extensive work of the CPCB based on information furnished by States/UTs, the challenge remains about verification of the said data on the one hand and analysis of the steps taken and required on the other. There is already a database available with the CPCB with regard to ETPs, CETPs, STPs, MSW facilities, Legacy Waste sites. This needs to be collated and river basinwise macro picture needs to be prepared by the CPCB in terms of need for interventions, existing 2 Para 10-13 in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti Vs. Union of India, Supra 20 infrastructure and gaps therein. The States have given timelines which need to be effectively monitored both by the CPCB and the Chief Secretaries in terms of its execution.
17. As already noted, prevention of pollution of water is directly linked to access to potable water as well as food safety. Restoration of pristine glory of rivers is also of cultural and ecological significance. This necessitates effective steps to ensure that no pollution is discharged in water bodies. Doing so is a criminal offence under the Water Act and is harmful to the environment and public health. 'Precautionary' principle of environmental law is to be enforced. Thus, the mandate of law is that there must be 100% treatment of sewage as well as trade effluents. This Tribunal has already directed in the case of river Ganga that timelines laid down therein be adhered to for setting up of STPs and till then, interim measures be taken for treatment of sewage. There is no reason why this direction be not followed, so as to control pollution of all the river stretches in the country. The issue of ETPs/CETPs is being dealt with by an appropriate action against polluting industries. Setting up of STPs and MSW facilities is the responsibility of Local Bodies and in case of their default, of the States. Their failure on the subject has to be adequately monitored. Recovery of compensation on 'Polluter Pays' principle is a part of enforcement strategy but not a substitute for compliance. It is thus necessary to issue directions to all the States/UTs to enforce the compensation regime, latest with effect from 01.04.2020. We may not be taken to be condoning any past violations. The States/UTs have to enforce recovery of compensation from 01.04.2020 from the defaulting local bodies. On failure of the States/UTs, the States/UTs themselves have to pay the requisite amount of compensation to be deposited with the CPCB for restoration of environment. The Chief Secretaries of all the States may furnish their respective compliance reports as per directions already issued in O.A. No. 606/2018."
"II. Report dated 14.08.2019 with regard to monitoring of CETPs
18. The Committee inspected 127 CETPs in 14 States. Figure of CETP assumed to be 97 was not correct. 66 CETPs were found to be non-compliant. CPCB directed SPCBs to take following steps:
"1. SPCBs shall direct non-complying CETPs to take immediate corrective actions to comply with the environmental standards.
2. CETP should be directed to take action as per the recommendations provided at Annexure A-N within a time frame.21
3. In case of non-complying CETPs, action as deemed fit including levying of environmental compensation may be taken.
4. In case, OCEMS are not connected with CPCB & SPCB servers, ensure a robust system of physical inspections to verify compliance by drawing samples."
"Discussion on the report dated 14.08.2019
19. We accept the recommendation of the CPCB and direct the Chief Secretaries, State Governments, Union Territories and the SPCBs/PCCs to take further action accordingly and furnish an action taken report accordingly. The CPCB to meanwhile compile and collate information with regard to ETPs, CETPs, STPs, MSW Facilities, Legacy Waste dump sites and complete the pending task on the subject before the next date and furnish a report.
20. The environmental compensation regime for CETP not meeting the prescribed norms need to be evolved by the CPCB."
(emphasis supplied)
7. After the above discussion, this Tribunal proceeded to issue following directions:
"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.
22(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 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 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 23 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.
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 conducted with reference to all the said 24 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 judicial- [email protected].
xii. Rivers which have been identified as clean may be maintained."
(emphasis supplied)
14. At this stage, it will also be appropriate to mention the proceedings in another matter pending before this Tribunal which have bearing on the present case namely O.A. No. 1038, News item published in "The Asian Age" Authored by Sanjay Kaw Titled "CPCB to rank industrial units on pollution levels" which was last dealt with on 14.11.2019.
Brief reference to same has been made in earlier order also. The issue therein was remedial action against pollution of industrial clusters, classified as such, based on Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index (CEPI) prepared by CPCB on the basis of data furnished by the State PCBs/PCCs. The said data shows that 100 industrial clusters are polluted in terms of air, water and soil. Some of the salient observations in the said order are as follows:
"9. In view of the above, since the data compiled so far shows increasing trend of air, water and soil pollution, meaningful action must result in reversing such trend and the violators of law cannot be allowed to have a free run at the core of environment and public health. Inaction by the statutory authorities is also at the cost of Rule of Law which is the mandate of the Constitution and is necessary for meaningful enforcement of legitimate constitutional rights of citizens and basic duty of a welfare State under the Constitution.
10. We may note the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subject of accountability of authorities for failing to discharge their duties. In M.C. Mehta v. UOI & Ors., W.P Civil No. 13029/1985 vide order dated 04.11.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:25
".....Obviously, it is writ large that the State Governments, Government of NCT of Delhi and civic bodies have miserably failed to discharge their liability as per the directive principles of State Policy which have found statutory expression, they are being made statutory mockery and also the directions of this Court and High Courts in this regard are being violated with impunity.
.... Time has come when we have to fix the accountability for this kind of situation which has arisen and is destroying right to life itself in gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
.... Everybody has to be answerable including the top state machinery percolating down to the level of gram panchayat. The very purpose of giving administration power up to the panchayat level is that there has to be proper administration and there is no room for such activities. The action is clearly tortuous one and is clearly punishable under statutory provisions, besides the violation of the Court's order."
In Techi Tagi Tara vs. Rajendra Singh Bhandari and Ors., (2018) 11 SSC 734, it was observed:
"2...... There can be no doubt that the protection and preservation of the environment is extremely vital for all of us and unless this responsibility is taken very seriously, particularly by the State Governments and the SPCBs, we are inviting trouble that will have adverse consequences for future generations. Issues of sustainable development, public trust and intergenerational equity are not mere catch words, but are concepts of great importance in environmental jurisprudence.
4. One of the principal attributes of good governance is the establishment of viable institutions comprising professionally competent persons and the strengthening of such institutions so that the duties and responsibilities conferred on them are performed with dedication and sincerity in public interest. This is applicable not only to administrative bodies but more so to statutory authorities- more so, because statutory authorities are the creation of a law made by a competent legislature, representing the will of the people."
11. The Tribunal has thus no option except to reiterate that meaningful action has to be taken by the State PCBs/PCCs as already directed and action taken report furnished showing the number of identified polluters in polluted industrial areas mentioned above, the extent of closure of polluting activities, the extent of environmental 26 compensation recovered, the cost of restoration of the damage to the environment of the said areas, otherwise there will be no meaningful environmental governance. This may be failure of rule of law and breach of trust reposed in statutory authorities rendering their existence useless and burden on the society. On default, the Tribunal will have no option except to proceed against the Chairmen and the Member Secretaries of the State PCBs/PCCs by way of coercive action under Section 25 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 read with Section 51 CPC. Such action may include replacement of persons heading such PCBs/PCCs or direction for stopping their salaries till meaningful action for compliance of order of this Tribunal. The Tribunal may also consider deterrent compensation to be recovered from the State PCBs/PCCs. Such action taken reports strictly in terms of law and order of this Tribunal referred to above may be furnished by the State PCBs/PCCS on or before 31.01.2020 to the CPCB. The CPCB may prepare a tabulated analysis of the same and file a consolidated report before this Tribunal before February 15, 2020 by email at judicial- [email protected]. The CPCB may also revise its mechanism for expansion and new activities by red and orange category of industries in critically/ severely polluted areas consistent with the spirit of the earlier orders of this Tribunal and principles of environmental law to bring down the pollution load and ensure that activities do not further add to such load."
10. After considering the report and recommendations submitted by the Joint Committee, We direct as follows:
i. The Municipal Commissioner is directed to immediately monitor and ensure the supply of pure water to the residents and in case it is not being supplied by the Project Proponent, the Municipal Commissioner to ensure the supply of water subject to the cost to be recovered from the Project Proponent.
ii. We constitute a Committee consisting one representative from the Central Pollution Control Board, one representative from State Pollution Control Board and one representative from Central Ground Water Authority to calculate the 27 amount of environmental compensation for violation of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act, 1981, extraction of groundwater without permission from Central Groundwater Authority.
iii. The Project Proponent to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs be deposited as a performance guarantee for compliance of the requirement of the law and if no reply is submitted before the date fixed the order may be passed accordingly.
11. Accordingly, we direct the representative of Central Pollution Control Board, State Pollution Control Board and Central Ground Water Authority to immediately calculate the environmental compensation and report within 10 days.
12. The Respondent- Project Proponent to show cause as to why the construction which was raised without permission from the Competent Authority or without any environmental clearance, and as to why the construction be not declared as unauthorised and necessary action be initiated according to law.
13. The Municipal Commissioner is directed to ensure that no untreated sewage water, be discharged into the open place or into the river bodies and free flow of drain / nala be immediately maintained.
14. The District Administration / Collector be directed to ensure the early disposal of the case pending under Section 133 of CRPC and also to take 28 remedial action and ensure that no illegal or unauthorised construction be permitted.
15. The Central Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Board is a Statutory Body competent to proceed to control the abatement of the pollution as aforesaid mentioned and to calculate and recover the environmental compensation according to law.
16. Thus, we direct the authority concerned to do according to law and further action taken report by the authorities mentioned above, the Central Pollution Control Board, the State Pollution Control Board, Central Ground Water Authority, the Municipal Commissioner, the Collector be submitted by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF before the date of listing.
17. A copy of this order be sent through available email to Municipal Commissioner, Central Pollution Control Board, State Pollution Control Board, Central Ground Water Authority and the applicant.
18. List it on 07.10.2020 Justice Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Dr. S.S. Garbyal, EM JG Original Application No. 61/2020 (CZ) 29