SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Ajay Prakash Misra and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.

Interlocutory Application Nos. 2 and 17 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1056 of 1990. D/d. 18.7.2000.

Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action and others - Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and others - Respondents

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3 - Environment Protection - Pollution - Industrial pollution - Laying down of 18 km. pipeline only possible alternative for eliminating affluent discharge - Paying of compensation of affected life and live stock of large number villagers is no ground to permit pollution to continue in future - State Pollution Control Board and Central Pollution Control Board directed to find out some concrete proposal to complete 18 km. pipeline and if no concrete plan is found to close down industries if not achieved zero level or permissible level of pollution.

[Para 4]

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. We have also seen the reports submitted in pursuance to our last order including that by the State Pollution Control Board. The report of the District Judge pertaining to the disbursement of the compensation has yet not been filed. However, we are in-formed that the whole amount has been deposited in terms of our last order.

3. The case is taken up today, grievance has been expressed that in spite of monitoring by this Court for a long time, the pollution is still continuing and there seems to be no positive step yet taken to control the same for which submissions have been made today. Last time one of the major suggestions given was that this problem will be eliminated when the 18 km. pipeline will be laid down. Certain difficulties were expressed and one of them was that we must also involve in this case the Sewerage Board for which we issued notices and the said Board is represented today by learned counsel. He has not yet filed any reply. He seeks short time for filing the same. He also submits orally that there may be difficulties so far the Sewerage Board for taking up this massive project, as their functioning is confined to the urban areas. When we placed this question before the learned counsel for the State, the State only referred that they have communicated to the Central Government for the funding under NRCP and as per the letter decided on 12th June, 2000 of the Deputy Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests, National River Conservation Directorate, Government of India, Hyderabad is not included under NRCP and it is not possible to consider funding of such schemes at this juncture. The only suggestion made therein is, they could refer for this to some foreign agencies for which a detailed note is sought for. The said report has not yet been sent.

4. Looking to this State of affairs, at this stage, there is no concrete plan so far for laying down the 18 km. pipeline project which seems to be the only possible alternative as per learned counsels, for eliminating the affluent discharge.

5. We are also informed by the learned counsel appearing for the Central Pollution Control Board that as per report decided on 8th July, 2000 submitted by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, it is recorded that some of the industries have also installed liquid incinerators for achieving zero discharge of high organic (toxic) wastes, converting the acidic affluents into saleable bye-products. It is for the State Pollution Control Board to take such appropriate steps so that the industries may achieve this zero or permissible discharge level by drawing the attention of the polluting industries. All the industries present in the Court today may take note of this part as stated in the said report. The State Pollution Control Board may by the next date also place a report as to which of the industries have undertaken this or any other such project to reach or achieve the zero level/permissible level of pollution discharge of the high organics.

6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of affidavits filed earlier, the reduction of hydraulic load by 20% has not been achieved. We would like to make it clear that on the next date we shall for this also be giving fixed time limit for achieving this. In case during this inter magnum any attempt is made by the State Pollution Control Board to achieves this, they may place this report by or before the next date fixed in this Case. The State Pollution Control Board shall also see that the use of fresh water as far as possible should now completely be stopped, as pointed out, and in the past, orders were passed in this regard by this Court. The State Government, the Union Government, both the Central and State Pollution Control Boards and Metro Water Works along with the industries will put up their suggestions either jointly or separately about concretisation of the plan of laying down of 18 km. pipeline within the specified time by the next date fixed for which we grant the parties six weeks time. Any other report etc. may be filed within the said period.

7. List this matter after seven weeks. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of A.P.

Order accordingly.