SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.N. Kirpal and Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, JJ..

I.A. Nos. 5-10 in W.P. (C) No. 725 of 1994. D/d. 10.03.2000.

News Item "Hindustan Times" A.Q.F.M. Yamuna - Petitioner

Versus

Central Pollution Control Board - Respondent

Public Interest Litigation - News Item "Hindustan Times" A.Q.F.M. Yamuna - Pollution in River Yamuna - Report with regard to water quality status of drains within Delhi which joins Yamuna does not show much improvement in the quality of water - Court adjourn the matter to enable the Attorney General to implement the order of Court and also to see the water conforms to the quality standards as laid down by Government itself - Held, it is primary duty of the Chief Secretary to see that directions given by Court are complied with, no authority or individual will interfere with the implementation of the orders which will have the effect of improving the water quality and if there is any interference by any person or authority, directly or indirectly, in this regard, the Court will be compelled to take appropriate action in regard thereto.

[Paras 4 to 6]

ORDER

Mr. Panjwani has placed on record a report with regard to the water quality status of the drains within Delhi which join the river Yamuna as well as the water quality of river Yamuna itself at three locations.

2. It does not appear that since the last order which was passed by this Court, there is much improvement in the quality of water. In fact, the report with regard to the quality of water in river Yamuna itself shows that by the time it leaves Delhi it is no longer a river it is only a sewage drain. The dissolved oxygen mg/1 of the river when it enters Delhi at Palla is 9.8 and when it leaves Delhi at Okhla it is Nil. Similarly, total coliforms MPN/100 ml when the river enters at Palla is 16,200 and when it leaves Delhi at Okhla it is 10.5 crores. There is, in other words, no improvement at all in the quality of the material which is contained in the river, because the material which is contained therein cannot be called water as that material has Nil mg of oxygen.

3. We are no satisfied with the endeavours on behalf of the Delhi Administration and other connected authorities in taking adequate and proper measures to prevent further deterioration and to redeem the river.

4. The Attorney General states that urgent steps will be taken and he requests for a short adjournment to enable him to impress upon the authorities concerned of the need not only to implement the orders of this Court but also to enable them to do their own duty and see that the water conforms to the quality and standards as laid down by the Government itself. We make it clear that while it is the primary duty of the Chief Secretary to see that the directions given by this Court are complied with, no authority or individual will interfere with the implementation of the orders which will have the effect of improving the water quality and if there is any interference by any person or authority, directly or indirectly, in this regard, the Court will be compelled to take appropriate action in regard thereto. We expect significant improvement in the quality of water by the next date of hearing and if it is not so the Attorney General will advise the Court as to what further action can be taken.

5. To come up for further orders on 28th April, 2000.

6. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) will file by 24th April, 2000 a report with regard to the quality of water as on or about 15th April, 2000. On the said report being received, the Delhi Administration will file an affidavit giving their response with regard to the quality of water. The CPCB report should also contain analysis with regard to the inorganic chemicals.

-RESULT .