Page 1

1

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

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

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

Page 4

4

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

Page 5

5

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

Page 6

6

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.

Page 7

7

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

Page 8

8

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

Page 9

9

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]

Page 10

10

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.

Page 11

11

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.

Page 12

12

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]