ORDER : M.N. Venkatachaliah and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ. - We have heard the learned counsel on both sides with regard to the mode of implementation of the work of removing and safe storage of iron sludge lying in the exposed areas in and around the factory premises of Respondents 4-8. 2. A particular mode of storage was indicated in the previous order dated 16-6-1992 for the temporary storage. The agency which was required to carry out the work was also indicated. That agency was Respondents 4 to 8 thereby. While the directions in regard to the removal and storage of the waste indicated in the order remain undisturbed, however, we think there should be a change in the agency through which the work is to be executed. 3. It would be conducive to a more expeditious and less controversial situation if the work is directed to be done by the Ministry of Environment, Union of India. The expenditure tentatively estimated at approximately Rs. 2 to 3 lakhs (excluding the cost of construction of storage tanks would have to be met by Respondents 4-8) is to be borne by Respondents 4 to 8. Now that storage tanks near the water treatment plant offered to be made available by Respondents 4 to 8, the expenditure, as tentatively estimated would be in the region of Rs. 2 to 3 lakhs for the purposes of removing, transporting and storing the iron sludge lying in the exposed areas for temporary storage. 4. We, therefore, direct Respondents 4 to 8 to deposit in this Court, on or before 21-7-1992, a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The Department of Environment, Union of India will immediately undertake the work, either by its own departmental agencies or by appointing such other agencies, including the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board, as may appear appropriate to the Department of Environment. The work shall be executed most expeditiously keeping in mind the consequences that will ensue upon the onset of rains with the prospect of the hazardous chemicals further percolating into the subsoil. 5. The work shall be executed most expeditiously keeping in mind the consequences that will ensue upon the onset of rains with the prospect of the hazardous chemicals further percolating into the subsoil. 5. Respondents 4 to 8 say that the present storage tanks available near their cooling tower should be adequate for the purposes of permanent storage of the iron sludge and that, therefore, such permanent storage may be ordered so that the need to construct fresh storage tanks at the location C in the plan annexed to the earlier order dated 16-6-1992 is obviated. This may be so if the entire iron sludge in the area could be accommodated, both exposed as well as that which is kept in storage, in the existing tanks to be made available by Respondents 4 to 8. If the capacity of the existing tanks is found to be insufficient, further arrangements may have to be contemplated. 6. There is one recurring theme which Respondents 4-8 have been harping upon and that pertains to the permission to sell away gypsum sludge stored in the factory premises. The respondents say that they have ready buyers for purposes of its use and assimilation in the manufacture of cement and that while the gypsum sludge would thus usefully be utilised in the manufacture of cement, it would also at the same time lessen the burden of the expenses of their permanent storage on Respondents 4-8. 7. We were shown some offers by some manufacturers of cement for the purchase of the iron sludge. We put it to the learned Additional Solicitor General whether Respondents 4-8 could be permitted to sell the gypsum sludge subject to the condition that before the purchasers remove the goods from the premises of Respondents 4-8, an independent expert will examine the nature and the quality of goods to ensure that gypsum sludge alone, and not iron sludge, leaves the factory premises. This matter will be considered on 21-7-1992. 8. Call this matter on 21-7-1992. Court Masters.