ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.725 OF 1994

Transcription

1 ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.725 OF 1994 IN RE: NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN HINDUSTAN TIMES TITLES `AND QUIET FLOWS THE MAILY YAMUNA' (With appln(s) for directions and invervention) With I.A. No.32 of 2006 in Writ Petition (C) No.725 of 1994 (For permission to start process of regularisation of unauthorised colonies) I.A. Nos.20 and 21 in Writ Petition (C) No.4677 of 1985 (For directions) [FOR DIRECTIONS] Date: 27/02/2012 These Matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati,AG (N/P) Mr. Ranjit Kumar,Sr.Adv.(A.C.) (N/P) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) Mr. M.C. Mehta,In-person (N/P) Mr. P.P. Malhotra,ASG. Ms. Indra Sawhney,Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv. Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv. Mr. Zaid Ali,Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. T.S. Doabia,Sr.Adv. Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj,Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad,Adv. Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal,Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv....2/-

2 - 2 - Mr. R.S. Suri,Sr.Adv. Ms. Pallavi Tayal,Adv. Mr. Deepayan Mandal,Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli,Adv. Mr. Ravindra Bana,Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Nupur Kanungo,Adv. Mr. Vijay Panjwani,Adv. M/s. Lawyers Associated,Advs. Ms. Naresh Bakshi,Adv. Mr. C.P. Pandey,Adv. Mr. V.K. Verma,Adv. Mr. M.L. Lahoty,Adv. Mr. Girish Chandra,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv. Ms. Malvika Trivedi,Adv. Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha,Adv. Mr. M.K. Diwakaran Nambordiri,Adv. (N/P) Mr. Ajay K. Agrawal,Adv. Mr. Prashant Chaudhary,Adv. Ms. Geeta Luthra,Sr.Adv. Mr. D.N. Goburdhan,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Shivkant Arora,Adv. Mr. Prabal Bagchi,Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh,AAG.,Haryana. Mr. Tarjit Singh,Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv....3/-

3 - 3 - Ms. Kavita Wadia,Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. Ms. Shiel Sethi,Adv. Mr. Satish Vig,Adv. Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya,Adv. for M/s. Saharya & Co.,Advs. Mr. Sanjiv Sen,Adv. Mr. Ujjawal Banerjee,Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup,Adv. Ms. Geetanjali Mohan,Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta,Adv. Mr. A.D.N. Rao,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Today, when the matter reached hearing, we have informed learned counsel appearing for respective parties that following Issues arising in this petition are required to be complied with. They are as follows: Steps required to be taken in `A Quite Flows Maili Yamuna' (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 725 of 1994) This Writ Petition came to be registered on a suo moto notice issued by this Court upon an article published in the Hindustan Times dated 18 th July, /-

4 - 4 - The scope of this petition was even sought to be enlarged by filing an application being I.A. No. 27 in this Writ Petition praying for interlinking of all major rivers in India. This prayer was not granted by the Court, but I.A. No. 27 was ordered to be independently registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512 of 2002, which has been disposed of vide a separate judgment by this very Bench today. Therefore, in the present Writ Petition, this Court is concerned only with the pollution being caused to the river Yamuna and complete deterioration in the quality of water in the said river, not only in Delhi, but also in the States of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. This Writ Petition is of the year 1994 and has been pending in this Court since then (approximately for a period of 18 years). This Court should find appropriate ways to pass such orders which would dispose of this petition while attaining the object of making the Yamuna pollution free. It should also ensure that no person, including corporations or other industries, discharge their sewage, trade or other effluents directly into Yamuna, without treating the same in accordance with the provisions of the Environment Protection Act. In order to have a complete background of this case and the directions required to be passed by this Court, it is required that: (i) the learned counsel appearing for the parties be directed to file written submissions supported by an affidavit stating the complete background of the case according to that authority, litigant or industry, (ii) Whether any treatment plants have been constructed by the public authorities, in particular for treatment of sewage before its discharge into river Yamuna at Delhi, Haryana and the districts of Uttar Pradesh....5/-

5 - 5 - If the answer to the same is in affirmative, then its details and if the same is in the negative, its reasons. It may also be stated as to why was it not possible for the concerned authorities to construct such treatment plants and ensure their functioning even after lapse of such a long period of time. If they could not be made operational, why the alternative systems of sewage or trade disposal were not adopted rather than discharging metric cubic tonnes of discharge into the Yamuna River. Whether any of the State Governments and particularly Haryana, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh has appointed Consultants to finalise the design and places of installation of sewerage treatment plants. If so, whether such experts have submitted their reports to the State Governments and what action has been taken by the respective State Governments. Committees: - How many committees have been appointed under the orders of this Court or otherwise, by the State Governments, directly with reference to this writ petition. Details with regard to the functioning of these Committees, analysis of the reports, if any, submitted by the said Committees and implementation of their reports, may also be furnished. Costing :- How much expenditure has so far been incurred by the Central or the respective State Governments on the projects relating to cleaning and making the Yamuna river free of pollution and the details of such projects on which such expenditures have been incurred by the respective States. Whether Audit of such expenditure has been done by any competent authority i.e. CAG or the State Accounts Department, if so, the particulars of the reports and if any objections were taken/pointed out....6/-

6 - 6 - Delhi Jal Board and Noida Authority shall submit action taken reports in furtherance to the orders dated 7 th September, 2005 and 12 th April, Steps taken by all the authorities in relation to control of Yamuna Water Pollution caused by illegal occupants on either side of the river in all the States. The Central Water Pollution Control Board shall take samples of water of river Yamuna from the States of Haryana, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh till Agra and submit its report within four weeks. The parties are hereby directed to comply with each of the above Issues as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks from today and the Head of the concerned Departments will file their respective affidavits in this regard. weeks. The writ petition shall stand over for six No further adjournment will be given. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar