PARYAVARAN SURAKSHA SAMITI & ANR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, 375 of 2012, Judgment Date: Feb 22, 2017
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 375 OF 2012
Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and another ..Petitioners
versus
Union of India and others ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI
The petitioners have approached this Court, seeking a writ in
the nature of mandamus, for a direction to the respondents, (which includes
the Union Government, all the State Governments and the Union Territories)
to ensure, that no industry which requires “consent to operate” from the
concerned Pollution Control Board, is permitted to function, unless it has
a functional effluent treatment plant, which is capable to meet the
prescribed norms for removing the pollutants from the effluent, before it
is discharged.
2. The Union of India, and the State Governments (including the
Union Territories) have filed counter affidavits, expressing their
individual positions. During the course of hearing, learned counsel
representing the respondents, also made some suggestions, which could be
highly beneficial, in carrying forward the process of removing pollutants,
from the discharged effluent, in a systematic and co-ordinated manner.
3. During the course of hearing, it was not disputed between the
rival parties, that the initiation of the process has to be at the
individual level of the industry itself. It was suggested that each
industry which requires “consent to operate” from the concerned Pollution
Control Board, should be mandated to set up a functional primary effluent
treatment plant. We are informed, that only when such an effluent
treatment plant has been set up, the concerned Pollution Control Board
grants a “no objection” to the industry, and accordingly “consent to
operate”, so as to allow the industry to become functional. It is
therefore apparent, that all running industrial units, which require
“consent to operate” from the concerned Pollution Control Board, have a
functional primary effluent treatment plant, in place.
4. The question that arises for our consideration is, whether the
same is maintained in good order, after the industry itself has become
functional. The industry requiring “consent to operate”, can be permitted
to run, only if its primary effluent treatment plant, is functional. We
therefore consider it just and appropriate, to direct the concerned State
Pollution Control Boards, to issue notices to all industrial units, which
require “consent to operate”, by way of a common advertisement, requiring
them to make their primary effluent treatment plants fully operational,
within three months from today. On the expiry of the notice period of three
months, the concerned State Pollution Control Board(s) are mandated to
carry out inspections, to verify, whether or not, each industrial unit
requiring “consent to operate”, has a functional primary effluent treatment
plant. Such of the industrial units, which have not been able to make
their primary effluent treatment plant fully operational, within the notice
period, shall be restrained from any further industrial activity. This
direction may be implemented by requiring the concerned electricity supply
and distribution agency, to disconnect the electricity connection of the
defaulting industry. We therefore hereby further direct, that in case the
concerned State Pollution Control Boards make a recommendation to the
concerned electrical supply and distribution agency/company, to disconnect
electricity supply to an industry, for the reason that its primary effluent
treatment plant is not functional, it shall honour such recommendation, and
shall disconnect the electricity supply to such defaulting industrial
concern, forthwith.
5. Such an industrial concern, which has been disabled from
carrying on its industrial activities, as has been indicated in the
foregoing paragraph, is granted liberty to make its primary effluent
treatment plant functional to the required capacity, and thereupon, seek a
fresh “consent to operate” from the concerned Pollution Control Board.
Only after the receipt of such fresh “consent to operate”, the industrial
activities of the disabled industry, can be permitted to be resumed. In
carrying out the above exercise, we consider it just and appropriate to
require, the Pollution Control Boards to carry out inspections, by
prioritizing inspections of severely and critically polluted industries, so
that visible results emerge at the earliest.
6. Liberty is hereby granted to private individual(s) and
organizations, to address complaints to the concerned Pollution Control
Board, if any industry is in default. On the receipt of any such complaint,
the concerned Pollution Control Board, shall be obliged to verify the same,
and take such action against the defaulting industry, as may be permissible
in law. Such action, would be in addition to the discontinuation of
industrial activity forthwith, in the manner directed hereinabove (but only
after verification).
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 per cent,
that of the concerned State Government (including the concerned Union
Territory) is 25 per cent. The balance 25 per cent, 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 learned counsel, is not
only financial, but also, the requirement of land acquisition, for the
same.
8. In view of the fact, that the financial position has been taken
care of, as has been expressed above, we are of the view, that the setting
up of “common effluent treatment plants”, should be taken up as an urgent
mission. With reference to common effluent treatment plants, which are
already under implementation, we hope and expect, that they would be
completed within the time lines already postulated. With reference to
common effluent treatment plants, which are yet to be set up, we consider
it just and appropriate to direct, the concerned State Governments
(including, the concerned Union Territories) to complete the same within a
period of three years, from today. We are also of the view, that while
acquiring land for the 'common effluent treatment plants', the concerned
State Governments (including, the concerned Union Territories) will acquire
such additional land, as may be required for setting up “zero liquid
discharge plants”, if and when required in the future.
9. During the course of hearing, we were informed by learned
counsel, that the running of 'common effluent treatment plants', which are
in place, is also a matter of serious concern. In this behalf, it was
submitted, that some of the common effluent treatment plants are dis-
functional, because of lack of finances, whilst some others are dis-
functional, because of the requirement of repairs, which have not been
carried out, again because of lack of financial resources.
10. Given the responsibility vested in Municipalities under Article
243W of the Constitution, as also, in item 6 of the 12th Schedule, 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 concerned municipalities (and/or local bodies), cannot be permitted to
shy away, from discharging this onerous duty. In case there are further
financial constraints, the remedy lies in Articles 243X and 243Y of the
Constitution. It will be open to the concerned municipalities(and/or local
bodies), 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 concerned State Government (Union
Territory), 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 plant' shall be finalized, on or
before 31.03.2017, 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 concerned State Governments
(or the Union Territories), shall cater to the financial requirements, of
running the “common effluent treatment plants”, which are presently dis-
functional, from their own financial resources.
11. Just in the manner suggested hereinabove, for the purpose of
setting up of “common effluent treatment plants”, the concerned State
Governments (including, the concerned Union Territories) will prioritize
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 time lines 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 time lines, expressed above, shall be of the
Member Secretaries of the concerned Pollution Control Boards. The
Secretary of the Department of Environment, of the concerned State
Government (and the concerned Union Territory), shall be answerable in case
of default. The concerned Secretaries to the Government shall be
responsible of monitoring the progress, and issuing necessary directions to
the concerned Pollution Control Board, 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 concerned Benches of the National Green Tribunal, will
maintain running and numbered case files, by dividing the jurisdictional
area into units. The above mentioned case files, will be listed
periodically. The concerned Pollution Control Board is also hereby
directed, to initiate such civil or criminal action, as may be permissible
in law, against all or any of the defaulters.
15. Liberty is granted to private individuals, and organizations,
to approach the concerned Bench of the jurisdictional National Green
Tribunal, for appropriate orders, by pointing out deficiencies, in
implementation of the above directions.
16. It however needs to be clarified, that the instant directions
and time lines, shall not in any way dilute any time lines and directions
issued by Courts or Benches of the National Green Tribunal, hitherto
before, wherein the postulated time lines would expire before the ones
expressed through the directions recorded above. It is clarified, that the
time lines, expressed hereinabove will be relevant, only in situations
where there are no prevalent time line(s), and also, where a longer period,
has been provided for.
17. It would be in the interest of implementation of the objective
sought to be achieved, to also require each concerned State(and each,
concerned Union Territory) to make provision for “online, real time,
continuous monitoring system” to display emission levels, in the public
domain, on the portal of the concerned State Pollution Control Board. We
are informed, that at least three State Governments have already adopted
the aforesaid
measures. Such measures shall be put in place by all the concerned State
Governments( including, the concerned Union Territories), within six months
from today.
18. The instant writ petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid
terms.
…..................CJI
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]
…....................J.
[Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD]
NEW DELHI; …....................J.
FEBRUARY 22, 2017. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL(W)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 375/2012
PARYAVARAN SURAKSHA SAMITI & ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with appln(s) for directions and exemption from filing OT and permission
to file synopsis and list of dates and office report)
Date : 22/02/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv
Mr. Gunjan Singh, Adv.
for Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta,AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG
(UOI) Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv.
Mr. Ansh Singh Luthra, Adv.
Mr. Hemant Arya, Adv.
for Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR
State of Haryana Mr. Anil Grover, AAG
Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Visen, AOR
State of Rajasthan Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG
Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv.
for Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR
State of MP Mr. Purushaindra Kaurav, AAG
Mr. Mishra Saurabh, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Kr. Lal, Adv.
Ms. Vanshuja Shukla, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Adv.
State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv.
State of Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak Kaushik, Adv.
Uttarakhand Ms. Shilpi Satya Priya Satyam, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sharma, Adv.
State of Jharkhand Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Waquas, Adv.
Mr. Sukant Vikram, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv.
State of Telangana Mr. S.Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv.
Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv.
State of AP Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
State of UP Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Samaddar, Adv.
Ms. Harshita Deshwal, Adv.
State of Tamil Nadu Mr. Paramasivam, Adv.
Mr. B. Balaji, Adv.
Mr. Muthuvel palani, Adv.
Mr. S. Kumar, Adv.
For CPCB Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv.
State of Bihar Ms. Varsha Poddar, Adv.
for Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
State of West Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, adv.
Bangal Mr. Debojyoti Bhattacharya, Adv.
for Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR
State of Odisha Mr. Krishnayan Sen,Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, Adv.
Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, Adv.
State of Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv.
Chhatisgarh for Mr. C. D. Singh,AOR
Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Kanth, Adv.
Mr. Pushkar Taimni, Adv.
State of Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv.
Karnataka Mr. Lagnesh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv.
Mr. Prakash Jadhav, Adv.
State of Punjab Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Bishnoi, Adv.
for Mr. Kuldeep Singh, AOR
Mr. C. K. Sasi,AOR
Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma,AOR
Ms. Sunita Sharma,AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of the reportable
judgment.
(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar)
Assistant Registrar AR-cum-PS
[Reportable signed judgment is placed on the file]
For the Latest Updates
Join Now