JUDGMENT : T.P. (C) No. 172/96 to come up along with W.P. (C) No. 1056/90. 1. The District Judge by his letter dated 13th of March, 1997, addressed to the Assistant Registrar of this Court, requested that in order to disburse the remaining amount of Rs. 63,65,222/- which is lying with him, it is necessary for him to have a copy of Annexure 'D' to the affidavit of the Joint Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 11.7.96 which gives particulars of the areas affected. The Office is directed to send to the District Judge at Medak an authenticated copy of Annexure 'D' to the said affidavit to enable him to disburse the amount lying with him. The District Judge is also directed to submit in consultation with the Revenue Authority, if required, a further Report assessing further damages, if any, after the last assessment and the quantum of such damages/compensation. This may be done within three months. 2. Despite the directions which have already been given, there is no satisfactory progress in the matter. Learned advocate who appears for PETL, pursuant to a notice given to him, states that PETL which is a Limited Company, constituted by the Industries which are using the said treatment plant has taken over the said plant from the State Government Undertaking only in December, 1996. He also states that they are taking active steps to expand and rejuvenate the common affluent treatment plant of PETL. In respect of Industries in Bholaram Industrial Area-there is a common affluent treatment plant which, according to the petitioner, is under the control and management of M/s Progress Affluent Treatment Limited. Notice to issue to CETL and M/s. Progress Affluent Treatment Limited and CETL through Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board stating that a status report should be submitted relating to the functioning of the Common Affluent Treatment Plant (CETL) and the steps, if any, being taken for proper treatment of affluent. 3. Since the A.P. Pollution Control Board was earlier connected with the functioning of the PETL it is desirable that we have an independent report from the Central Pollution Control Board in connection with the status of PETL as well as CETL. 3. Since the A.P. Pollution Control Board was earlier connected with the functioning of the PETL it is desirable that we have an independent report from the Central Pollution Control Board in connection with the status of PETL as well as CETL. The Report shall set out inter alia the capacity of these plants, their functioning and the extent of treatment which the affluent receives in these plants, as also whether the discharge from these plants meets the pollution control standard of the Civil Procedure Code. The report shall also set out the extent of the areas around the industries which are damaged as.a result of the discharge of affluent and the extent of such damages, as also the steps which should be taken to restore the affected areas to their non-polluted condition. The report shall also state the steps which are required to be taken for proper functioning of PETL and CETL and the time- frame within which this can be done. These are only some of the factors which we have indicated. The Central Pollution Control Board should deal comprehensively with the entire problem and suggest such measures as they think appropriate for rectifying the situation. 4. In our order of 27th January, 1997, we had permitted a industries which are named in that order to have their affluent treated in their own affluent treatment plants since the common affluent treatment plant did not have enough capacity to treat all affluent brought to the common affluent treatment plant. It is now contended before us by PETL that some of these industries have only a primary treatment plant and not a full treatment plant for the treatment of affluent. The Central Pollution Control Board should also, in their report, set out the industries which have their own affluent treatment plant, indicating whether it is a complete plant or whether it is only for primary treatment of affluent. It should also inspect and report on the quality of the affluent discharged from these private affluent treatment plants belonging to each of these industries, and whether they meet the prescribed standards. 5. Any other industry in that area which also has its own affluent treatment plant apart from the industries which are mentioned in our order of January, 1997, shall also be similarly inspected by the CPCB and a similar report in connection with such industries shall also be furnished. 5. Any other industry in that area which also has its own affluent treatment plant apart from the industries which are mentioned in our order of January, 1997, shall also be similarly inspected by the CPCB and a similar report in connection with such industries shall also be furnished. The report shall also list the names of all polluting industries in this area and the extent of pollution generated by those industries. The report shall be submitted within a period of three months. A notice shall also go to the CPCB to remain present on the next occasion. 6. No directions on I.A. No. 10, filed by Meeta Industries, since according to us the appropriate authority for giving such directions would be the District Court, if it considers it appropriate to do so.