Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.34 seconds)Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 2017
31. We have suggested change in approach in realizing that
remedial action cannot wait for indefinite period as is being proposed
by the Administration. Sources of funding are laid down in the orders
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Responsibility of the authorities is to
have comprehensive plan to control pollution which is its absolute
liability, which is not being understood. If there is deficit in budgetary
allocations, it is for the authorities to have suitable planning by
reducing cost or augmenting resources. By way of suggestion, one
may consider harnessing traditions, culture, knowledge and
community involvement atleast on reducing waste and maintaining
cleanliness. People must be involved in the problem by appropriate
awareness and strategies to encourage public participation and
4
contribution. At the cost of repetition, health issues cannot be
deferred to long future. Long future dates which, breach of which is
established from the track record of last several decades, is not
convincing solution. There is no accountability for the past breaches.
It is poor substitute for compliance. This approach may project lack
of concern or not realizing the grim ground situation crying for
emergent remedial measures on priority. There is no time for leisure,
reflected in timelines proposed for bridging the acknowledged gaps.
Claimed success by some local bodies elsewhere in setting up waste
processing plants and harnessing benefits like bio-CNG/power
energy1 may need to be looked into and if found useful, the same
need to be followed with suitable modifications. Accordingly, based
on quantum of waste generation, adoption of processing technologies
may be selected and long time consuming and unconclusive
tendering system be dispensed with.
Almitra H. Patel And Anr. Petitioners vs Union Of India And Ors. .. Respondents on 15 February, 2000
30. It is a matter of concern that even after 48 years of enactment
of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and expiry of
timelines for taking necessary steps for solid waste management in
terms of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and binding direction
in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal in
Almitra H. Patel vs. Union of India & Ors. and Paryavaran Suraksha
vs. Union of India, supra, huge gaps still exist. Are there
insurmountable difficulties for the authorities or lack of will and
determination? We find it difficult to believe the first. In our view, it is
lack of good governance and determination responsible for the
situation which needs to be remedied soonest.
Pushpendra Kumarpushpendra Kumar vs Adhishashi Adhikari Nagar Panchayat ... on 11 October, 2022
42. As already observed, there is need for planning to prevent
sewage (treated or untreated) entering the potable water resources.
Instead, the same is to be suitably treated and channelized for non-
potable purposes - agriculture, industrial or others. By way of
illustration, we may refer to certain models which can be considered
at appropriate locations. The same have been mentioned in order of
this Tribunal dated 11.10.2022 in M.A. No. 43/2022 in OA No.
41/2020, Pushpendra Kumar vs. Nagarpanchayat, Kadaura&Ors.,
as follows:
Abhisht Kusum Gupta vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 17 March, 2023
49. In the light of above and considering damage to the
recipient environment, we hold that apart from ensuring
compliance at the earliest, compensation has to be paid by the
State for past violations. The amount of compensation is fixed @
Rs. 2 crore per MLD (at which rate compensation has been levied
against Noida and DJB in OA No. 1002/2018, Abhisht Kusum
Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors, referred to in para 48
above for detailed reasons mentioned therein). As noted earlier,
gap in generation and treatment in West Bengal, as per
data furnished is 1490 MLD. Thus, under this head,
liability of the State of West Bengal is to pay
compensation of Rs. 2980 crores, rounded off to Rs. 3000
crore in view of continuing damage. For failure to process
solid waste, unprocessed legacy waste being 1.20 crore
MT, compensation is assessed @ Rs. 300 per MT (at which
approximate rate compensation has been awarded in OA
No. 286/2022 against Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana,
for the reasons given therein). This works out to Rs. 366
crore but adding 134 crore for continuing addition of
unprocessed waste @ 13469.19 TPD, the total amount is
rounded off to Rs. 500 crore. Thus, final amount of
compensation under the two heads (solid and liquid
waste) is assessed at Rs. 3500 crores which may be
deposited by the State of West Bengal in a separate ring-
The Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act, 1974
The Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016
Section 15 in The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 [Entire Act]
1