JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. We hoped final concrete stage would reach this date but it has not to be. Our last order dated 18th July, 2000 recorded such in no uncertain terms: “We grant as a last opportunity, to the State Government, the Union Government, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Central Pollution Control Board including the polluting industries, to find out some positive and concrete way with some concrete proposal within any fixed period to complete this 18 Kms. Pipeline Project by the next date fixed in this case.” 2. When this case was taken up today, we find an affidavit is filed on behalf of M/s Patancheru Envirotech Ltd. through Dr. D.R. Rao for the consideration of alternative, option No. II, which is referred in the earlier report of Central Pollution Control Board in March 1998. The said report record with reference to Option No. II: “That large industries shall treat their effluent to bring down BOD to 1000 mg/I following norms of TDS, COD, SS as discussed earlier and discharge their effluent to CETP. CETP also receive the effluent from SSI units meeting the norms of COD & TDS and would collect sewage from local areas/sewer net work. CETP effluent instead of disposal to sewer will be discharged to land for afforestation.” 3. The submission is, this alternative proposal could be more speedily concluded with lesser expenditure and better output. Further, if this is opted, the total period for completing this would be shorter than what is proposed by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and the State as per their status report dated 29-8-2000. This affidavit also comprehensively deals with how to generate expenditure for completing this project. It is not necessary at this stage to refer to its other details. 4. On the other hand, as per Annexure “3” to the status report the total period for completing this project of laying down 18 Kms Pipeline Project is about 18 months. This report also specifies the financial arrangement through which they will be completing this project. Submission for the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board is, though as per the said status report the period for completing the project is larger but it is possible to shrink Order dated October 10, 2000 in I.A. Nos. This report also specifies the financial arrangement through which they will be completing this project. Submission for the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board is, though as per the said status report the period for completing the project is larger but it is possible to shrink Order dated October 10, 2000 in I.A. Nos. 2, 17, 18 and 19 in W.P. (C) No. 1056 of 1990 this period by having some of deliberations done simultaneously along with other works. Normally in the background of our last order we would not have granted further indulgence for considering these alternative suggestions, specially when monitoring of the elimination of pollution started by the Court as far back as in 1990, a decade from now, but in view of the fact, even execution of the 1st option if to be undertaken, requires further scrutiny including shortening the period of its completion. So we grant one more opportunity to all the parties, to meet again to consider the aforesaid two proposals and finalise one such proposal. Accordingly, all the parties who are referred to in the order dated 18-7-2000 including the petitioner may once again meet at the desired time and place for the said purpose to come to a final decision in this regard. 5. After this, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board will file a short affidavit, specifying which of the two proposals it considers to be feasible and is possible to be executed. The affidavit will also specify the period to be taken in completing the proposal. In case as per Status report dated 29-8-2000, if the first option is to be accepted, the steps to be taken in this regard, as referred in Annexure-D of the said report may be continued so that time is not lost meanwhile. In the meanwhile EIA report in respect of technical aspect may also be obtained in respect of both option I and option II which may also be placed along with the said affidavit. 6. On the next date we would examine which of the industries has not reached permissible level and not likely to reach within three months. The said meeting for the said purpose may be called within three weeks from today. The concrete proposals along with the affidavit containing what we have said above and what we are indicating hereunder will be filed within a period of three weeks thereafter. 7. The said meeting for the said purpose may be called within three weeks from today. The concrete proposals along with the affidavit containing what we have said above and what we are indicating hereunder will be filed within a period of three weeks thereafter. 7. The another matter of concerned which we have expressed in our last order was that number of industries have yet not achieved the zero level or permissible level of discharge for which we directed the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board to specify those industries in this regard. 8. In the aforesaid Status report, the said Board records the efforts made by them in this regard. According to the Status report the industries have made some efforts to reach the permissible level of discharge. The industries have also provided apart from some other forced evaporation system such as Multiple Effect Evaporators to evaporate water contents in high inorganic effluent and residue material stored within their premises as per Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board authorisation, for disposal to treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDF) which is yet to start operations. The submission is that TSDF could not come in operation because of pending writ petition which has now been disposed of. So there would be no difficulty now for it being operational. The said status report has annexed as Annexures IV A&B showing industries having achieved zero or permissible level of discharge and Annexure V, showing small scale industries with marginal pollution loads. And finally Annexure VI A&B showing industries either closed or sick, practically non-functional. 9. Similarly with reference to another part of our last order, namely, the reduction of hydraulic load by 20%, the report records, all the industries were directed to furnish the status of their achievement in reducing this hydraulic load as per this Court's Order and also to furnish action plan to reduce this by 20%. The industries have furnished the said information. According to this report due to segregation of TSDF effluents and process modification, there is considerable reduction of the waste water discharge at source. Most of the industries have made efforts to reach 20% hydraulic load reduction in the net generation of trade effluent per tonne of product at the point of generation. The industries have furnished the said information. According to this report due to segregation of TSDF effluents and process modification, there is considerable reduction of the waste water discharge at source. Most of the industries have made efforts to reach 20% hydraulic load reduction in the net generation of trade effluent per tonne of product at the point of generation. The list of such industries achieving so has been annexed as Annexure VIII A&B. It also records due to hydraulic load reduction, the TSDF meant for storing solid industrial hazardous waste and residues form evaporated effluent, has not yet been commissioned. The submission is, till this TSDF is operational there may not be any reduction of tankers to CETP. According to Annexure VIII (B) 14 industries have reduced the hydraulic load but have yet not achieved the desired level of 20% and these industries will be monitored for reducing hydraulic load to the desired level within three months. Similarly, in Annexure IX there are 9 industries which have not reduced hydraulic load. These industries are mainly small scale in nature and the production activity is not stable in most of these industries. These industries will be pursued to achieve the desired hydraulic load reduction within a period of three months. 10. Till long term scheme is finalised, the short time efforts to eliminate to pollution by these industries have to be strictly monitored by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. While filing the said affidavit by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, they will specifically record which of the industries have already achieved zero level or permissible limit of discharge and which of the industries have yet not reached that level. Secondly, those who have not yet reached, among them which of them will be able to achieve within the period of next three months and finally the list of those industries which will not be able to achieve this level within three months. Similarly, the said Board (APPCB) will file affidavit with annexure, with reference to the reduction of hydraulic load by 20% stating which of the industries have achieved this and which have yet to achieve, and which will be able to achieve within three months. 11. Another submission is, with reference to the disbursement of compensation. We are informed that the State of Andhra Pradesh has already deposited total amount as directed by this Court. 11. Another submission is, with reference to the disbursement of compensation. We are informed that the State of Andhra Pradesh has already deposited total amount as directed by this Court. The grievance is that the said amount has yet not been disbursed. According to the office report dated 30-9-2000 a letter has been received from the District Judge that some amount has been deposited and disbursement of compensation will be taken up as soon as the Mandal Revenue Officer Sanga Reddy funishes the required information. This letter is dated 13-7-2000 and as per learned counsel for the State, the Mandal Revenue Officer must have furnished the required information. In case the said information has not yet reached the District Judge, the State shall send communication to the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer to furnish the required information so that no further delay is caused in the payment. The District Judge by or before the next date fixed in this case will submit the report in this regard about the disbursement of the compensation. 12. We are also informed that some incongruity exists in respect of the District Judge's report dated 25-1-1999, which is quoted hereunder: “The Revenue Officials also submitted the particulars of the pollution caused to the farmers of Gundlamachanoor village to an extent of land of Ac. 2793-01 Gts. and also another village, namely Pal panoor to an extent of Ac. 3319-3512 Gts. for the damages caused to the crops for the period from 1984-85 of 1997-98.” 13. One is, what is recorded in para-36 of his report, about which a representation has already been made which is pending consideration of the District Judge. District Judge may consider this and do the needful. The second is with reference to what is contained in para-34 of the same report, about the farmers of villages Ismailkhanpet and its hamlet. The said report, for the said village has not considered the entitlement to compensation for the years 1984-85 to 1995-96. His report confines for one year only. In this respect also a representation has been made which is pending his consideration. He will consider this representation also and pass necessary order and do the needful. 14. The District Judge while submitting the report with respect to the payment as aforesaid, will also report the disposal of the said two representations. 15. Issue notice on I.A. Nos. 18 and 19. He will consider this representation also and pass necessary order and do the needful. 14. The District Judge while submitting the report with respect to the payment as aforesaid, will also report the disposal of the said two representations. 15. Issue notice on I.A. Nos. 18 and 19. The petitioners will serve all of the respondents if not already served. 16. List this matter on 12-12-2000 before us. 17. Copy of the order may be sent to the concerned District Judge within four days.