Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2001 DIGILAW 1958 (SC)

NEWS ITEM hindustan TIMES A. Q. F. M. YAMUNA v. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

2001-12-04

body2001
( 1 ) PURSUANT to this Courts order dated 6/11/2001, the Chief Secretary, government of NCT, Delhi has filed an affidavit in relation to the setting up of the sewerage treatment plants. Reading of the affidavit discloses that if action takes place in constructing the plants without any hindrance then at a point of time in future, perhaps by December 2005, the capacity of STPs would rise to 757. 4 MGD. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the affidavit, population of Delhi is increasing by five lakhs per year by reason of immigration. This means that in another four years i. e. in December 2005, the permanent population of Delhi will increase by 20 lakhs and thus again, there will be a shortfall of the treatment of sewage. The affidavit does not indicate as to what steps, if any, the government proposes to take to meet the future requirements of treating the waste water, which is going to increase. ( 3 ) THE projections, which have been given in this affidavit, appear to be based on the water supplied by the Delhi Jal Board and does not take into consideration the groundwater which is drawn and utilised and a part of which adds to the sewage. ( 4 ) AS of today, the sewage treatment capacity is 442. 4 MGD which is likely to increase to 497. 4 MGD by March 2002. This is far less than the amount of sewage which exists and which requires treatment. Under these circumstances, there is merit in the contention of the amicus that unless this basic civic amenity of treating the sewage, which is generated, is made available, the Government cannot allow extra construction without there being corresponding increase in the civic amenities. Any such addition in the construction would lead to increased population and perhaps the extinction of river Yamuna. ( 5 ) THE learned Solicitor General submits that in relation to town planning the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 would be applicable and whenever any decision is taken in regard to town planning environment impact assessment must first be undertaken, clearance obtained and then the decision taken. Unfortunately, the Rules under the Environment (Protection) act as such do not cover town planning. Unfortunately, the Rules under the Environment (Protection) act as such do not cover town planning. In regard to this aspect, the learned solicitor General wants to address arguments and give suggestions to the court as to what effective orders can be passed with a view to prevent River yamuna from becoming history. The Central Government should also consider and inform the Court on the next date of hearing whether it should not amend the Rules under the Environment (Protection) Act so as to require the environment impact assessment for the purposes of the town planning acts. ( 6 ) A formal notice in this behalf be also issued to the Ministry of environment and Forests. NCRB should also file an affidavit as to what steps they have taken in order to implement the provisions of the Act applicable to it. ( 7 ) THE Union of India and the Delhi Government are directed to show cause why there should be no stay of the construction of extra floors considering the fact that basic civic amenities including sewage for the existing dwelling units are not available. ( 8 ) THE application is dismissed as withdrawn as the petitioner wishes to approach the arbitrator.