ORDER : V.V.S. Rao, J. The petitioner, an association register under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Regulation Act, 1350 F. represented by its President one Dr. R. Srikanth, claims to have filed this writ petition invoking PIL jurisdiction of this Court. In the writ petition, it is prayed writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in establishing Kukatpally and Sanathnagar (K & S) duplicate pipeline for releasing untreated effluents into Amberpet Sewage Treatment Plant (ASTP), without complying the standards of Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) by respondent No. 9 as illegal, arbitary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, besides being contrary to the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short 'the Water Act') and other environmental laws. 2. The President who affirmed the writ affidavit states that he owes a fundamental duty under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India to protect the environment. He complains the defiling and pollution of Musi River by reason of release of domestic sewage thereunto contaminated with toxic metals, organic compounds and other chemicals, ultimately leading to contamination of the forage grass and ground water, making it a breeding ground for mosquitoes. He further complains that respondent No. 9 namely, Jeedimentla Commom Effluent Treatment Plant (JETL) is not maintaining the standards prescribed by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), as a result of which, the pipeline laid by respondent No. 7 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HM WSSB) is getting corroded, and in the absence of any foolproof sewage treatment plant, the problem is becoming grave and deleterious to the health of the people living along the banks of the River Musi. He further submits that the respondents are violating the provisions of Water Act directly releasing the domestic sewage into Musi River, which also receives copious polluted waters from the Hussain Sagar Lake, which is already defiled with toxic industrial effluents. The riverbed in an extent of Ac. 500-00 is being used for growing forage/fodder for milch cattle. The research conducte by the petitioner on the sludge and forage grass taken from the riverbed of Musi shows high levels of concentration of heavy metals. In support of this submission, he enclosed two articles published by him in association with to other researchers. 500-00 is being used for growing forage/fodder for milch cattle. The research conducte by the petitioner on the sludge and forage grass taken from the riverbed of Musi shows high levels of concentration of heavy metals. In support of this submission, he enclosed two articles published by him in association with to other researchers. Be that it may, it is stated that there are 300 to 400 cattle-sheds housed along the riverbed through its course in the city; that about 5000 milk yielding cattle are fed with fodder/ fodder grass grown in Musi River, and the milk of such cattle, which consumed by large number of people living in the city, leaves a great adverse impact on their health. 3. It is also averred that the ground water along the River is contaminated with carsinogenic elements as well as E-coli bacteria, which causes epidemics like cholera, typhoid and gastroenteritis in human beings. The JETL is letting out the waste water from its plant without adhering to CEPT standards, prescribed by CPCB. The treated effluentlet out from JETL contains objectionable substances five to ten times higher than the permissible limits, and is responsible for pollutingthe ground water and injuring the community health. The petitioner, therefore, states that the closed pipeline system should receive high priority. The ASTP is not a fulfledged treatment plant. It is a primary treatment plant where only sludge is separated. Its capcity is only 110 MLD (million litres per day), and 80% of the urban sewage is being direcrtly let into the Musi River. JETL, which deals with hazardous liquid and solid effluents coming from more than 100 industries is adding to the problem. Its functions were never critically assessed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board (APPCB). The system evolved for treating the effluents flowing from JETL to ASTP is unscientific and not environmental-friendly. Therefore, the very laying of K & S duplicate pipeline for releasing treated effluents from JETL to ASTP is illegal, and should be stopped by restraining respondent Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 9 from releasing the effluents of ASTP till a fulfledged treatment system is established therein. 4. This Court admitted the writ petition on 21 -6-1999, and directed all the respondents to file their counters. Respondent Nos. 5-APPCB, 7-HM WSSB, and 9-JETL filed their counters. We may notice the averments made in these counters in brief. 5. 3, 5, 7 and 9 from releasing the effluents of ASTP till a fulfledged treatment system is established therein. 4. This Court admitted the writ petition on 21 -6-1999, and directed all the respondents to file their counters. Respondent Nos. 5-APPCB, 7-HM WSSB, and 9-JETL filed their counters. We may notice the averments made in these counters in brief. 5. Respondent No. 5 in the counter stated as follows: The Musi River travels through old and new cities of Hyderabad. It traditionally provided the finaldrainage to its sub-basin commencing at Vikarabad. Stretching over a distance of 20 Kms. From Vikarabad to Amberpet, the River has become an open channel for 64 storm water outlets directly discharge waters into it, besides high excess discharging from Hussain Sagar Lake, which is contaminated. The contamination of Musi River is more due to organic discharges than industrial. The APPCB has been monitoring the surface and groundwater upstream and downstream of the River Musi, Amberpet being the midpoint. The APPCB is also carrying out studies on water quality and epidemiology with the help of Institute of Preventive Medicine, Hyderabad. The analysis of groundwater does not indicate the incidene of heavy metals like cadmium, chromium, lead and zinc. However, the position will become lucid by analysis of blood samples, hair samples, legume and para-grass samples, which is being analysed by the Institute of Preventive Medicine, and the analysis can help establish food chain linkages. The mosquito menace is being attended to by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad by conducting spraying operations along the riverbed. 6. It is also stated in the counter of respondent No. 5 that JETL is authorised to release its treated effluents in to K & S main, which is partially treated at ASTP before being let out into the River Musi. The allegation that respondent No. 9 is not treating the effluents which it received from member industries as per CPCB standards is a simplistic conclusion. JETL is treating the effluents by mixing sewage and industrial effluents in the ratio of 1:2.2, and is discharging the treated effluents into K & S main sewer line, which is again treated at ASTP. CPCB is monitoring the functioning of JETL. It submitted its report to the Supreme Court in W.P. No. 1056 of 1990 stating that the performance of JETL has improved in degree of treatment. CPCB is monitoring the functioning of JETL. It submitted its report to the Supreme Court in W.P. No. 1056 of 1990 stating that the performance of JETL has improved in degree of treatment. Though JETL is releasing toxic chemicals through closed pipelines, its performance has improved considerably, and it is treating very high influent concentrations of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), ranging between 60,000 to 1,00,000 ug/f (micrograms per litre), proving its relative efficiency compared with other common treatment plants. APPCB is regularly monitoring the functioning of JETL, and no instances of release of untreated effluents, which cause corrosion of K & S pipeline was observed of. As committed before the Supreme Court, the APPSB is trying to ensure performance of Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs) as per the Joint Action Plan approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Respondent No. 7 is also monitoring the quality of sulphates, which are the main corrosive elements in the effluents, and if there is any such danger, JETL will be alerted, and if necessary, the industries which release such effluents to the JETL and CEPT will be closed for a period required to repair/rectify the problem. 7. Dealing with the allegation of contamination of milk, it is stated that a meeting was held on 12-8-1999, and it was informed by the Animal Husbandary Department that there is no adverse impact on animal tissues fed with forage grass grown on the Musi riverbed, and that heavy metals do not penetrate through cattle milk to the human beings who consume it. The Agriculture Department has also informed that vegetables grown do not contain heavy metals in alarming proportions. Despite this, the APPCB is proposing to carrying out epidemiological studies along the Musi riverbed for food chain linkages through Institute of Preventive Medicine and National Institution of Nutrition jointly. There is no gross pollution of ground water, as alleged by the petitioner, according to the survey conducted by the Institute of Preventive Medicine with reference to physio-chemical parameters, including heavy metals. The groundwater around the Musi River is, however, contaminated with E.Coli bacteria. This may be due to release of domestic sewage from the colonies in the upstream of Puranapul (old bridge) and the release of effluents from slaughter-houses located in and around the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The groundwater around the Musi River is, however, contaminated with E.Coli bacteria. This may be due to release of domestic sewage from the colonies in the upstream of Puranapul (old bridge) and the release of effluents from slaughter-houses located in and around the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. Efforts are being made to shift the slaughter-houses to Chengicherla village so as to avoid contamination of water. It is also proposed to establish three STPs at Attapur, Nagole and Nallacheruvu by respondent No. 7, which is also taking steps to upgrade the existing capacity of ASTP from 115 MLD to 815 MLD. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has taken up Nandanavanam Project as a clean up scheme, prepared by the Environment Planning Collaborative (EPC), Ahmedabad. 8. The APPCB with the assistance of the Government of Australia is implementing "Hyderabad Waste Management Project". Under this project, the JETL is upgrading its capacities with technical assistance of Australian experts for developing appropriate pretreatment systems, and also by using Ozonator, donated by the Australian Government. APPCB is also taking steps to install/ fix inflow meters to measure the correct inflow of effluents from JETL to K & S main to ASTP with a view to detect necessary leakages and to effect repairs immediately. All steps are being taken while granting letters of consent u/s 25 of the Water Act to the industries which discharge their effluents directly into various nalas. A condition is being incorporated to install separate Energy Meter to the effluent treatment plant to measure the energy consumed by the unit. Environment Protection Training & Research Institute (EPTR) identified 231 polluting industries, and the District Administration of Hyderabad has initiated action to shift the polluting industries from the city of Hyderabad to some other place. 9. Respondent No. 7-(HMWSSB) while adopting the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 5, inter alia further stated to the following effect: in relations to paras 13, 14, 17,24 and 26 of the petitioner's affidavit. Allegations of improper treatment and pollution of drinking water made by the petitioner are denied. It is stated that the treated effluents from JETL is being conveyed through closed pipeline upto ASTP, which has been remodelled and upgraded by HM WSSB. The treated effluents, received from JETL are further treated as ASTP, and then diverted to Nallacheruvu. Therefore, there is no basis for the apprehension that drinking water is being polluted. It is stated that the treated effluents from JETL is being conveyed through closed pipeline upto ASTP, which has been remodelled and upgraded by HM WSSB. The treated effluents, received from JETL are further treated as ASTP, and then diverted to Nallacheruvu. Therefore, there is no basis for the apprehension that drinking water is being polluted. The samples of treated effluents are being sent to the APPCB, EPTRI and Ms. Vimta Labs Ltd. for analysis. The reports given by them reveal that there are no dangerous and harmful elements in the treated effluents, which are diverted to Nallacheruvu. APPCB is monitoring the inlet and surplus flow of water from Hussain Sagar Lake outlet, and no complaints have been received from APPCB for any alleged omission or commission or alleged ineffective treatment by HMWSSB. Respondent No. 7 has also proposed to construct STPs at Attapur, Nagole and Nallacheruvu, and the construction work will be taken up after receiving sanction and requisite funds from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. 10. Respondent No. 9-(JETL) has filed detailed counter-affidavit enclosing voluminous documents. While denying all the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit, JETL states that the writ petitioner. Dr. Srikanth, has filed the writ petition out of spite as JETL did not favour by giving project to Envirocure India, in which he is a partner. Dr. Srikanth and his partner one S.K. Gupta of Enviocure India approached JETL by letter dated 12-2-97 proposing a project "Hazardous Waste Management Plan" at a cost of Rs. 3,76,000/-. After deliberations, JETL did not accept the proposal of the petitioner. Likewise, the proposal of Cure Environmental Services, another firm started by Dr. Srikanth, was also rejected by JETL. For this reason, the petitioner has filed the writ petition purely for personal reasons and not in the interest of the general public. 11. JETL has been put under microscopic scrutiny by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In obedience to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, respondent No. 2-(CPCB) conducted detailed surveys and submitted a report in October, 1998 stating that JETL is functioning satisfactorily, and is being regularly monitored by APPCB. Describing the operations of JETL, it is stated that the treated effluents from JETL are conveyed through closed pipelines along the entire stretch of 9.4 Kms. up to Balanagar. Describing the operations of JETL, it is stated that the treated effluents from JETL are conveyed through closed pipelines along the entire stretch of 9.4 Kms. up to Balanagar. At that point, it meets the duplicate K & S main at manhole No. 176, which is also a closed pipeline upto ASTP. From duplicate K & S at Balanagar to ASTP, further domestic sewage pipelines meet duplicate K & S pipeline, and the entire treated effluent from JETL and the untreated sewage, which goes through the duplicate K & S are treated at ASTP. Therefore, the allegation that JETL is not adhering to the standards prescribed by CPCB is not correct. JETL has nothing to do with the alleged pollution of Musi River nor can it be blamed for the alleged groundwater pollution because the entire treated industrial and domestic waste that flows out of JETL does not travel on the open surface. Though there are several major industrial units stipulated in Gandhinagar, Balanagar, Fatehnagar, Kukatpally, Sanathnagar etc., which do not have effluent treatment plants, the petitioner has only made allegations against JETL to blackmail it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after going through the various reports submitted by CPCB and APPCB has issued several guidelines, which are being adhered to by JETL. JETL is considered to be a pioneer in the field of Common Effluent Treatment, and it has been invited to share its experience at the UN Environment Protection Experts meeting held at Paris on 11th and 12th April, 1995. The model of JETL finds place in UN Environment Programme Report, and is being propagated the world over. Engineering and Scientific staff of respondent No. 9 regularly participate in seminars and workshops for updating their knowledge and skills in the treatment of industrial effluents. Finally it is stated that all effective steps are being taken on a sincere note to let out the treated effluents strictly in accordance with the standards fixed by the Government of India. 12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Sreedhar for Smt. M. Venkateswari, learned Standing Counsel for APPCB, and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, the learned Counsel for JETL. We have been taken through various reports as well as orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Sreedhar for Smt. M. Venkateswari, learned Standing Counsel for APPCB, and Sri V.T.M. Prasad, the learned Counsel for JETL. We have been taken through various reports as well as orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After hearing the elaborate submissions of the respective counsel, two questions arise for consideration namely, (1) Whether this writ petition should not be treated as PIL having regard to the allegations made by respondent No. 9-JETL that the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India out of spite and to have personal gain? and (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the CASE directions to APPCB, HMWSSB and the Government of Andhra Pradesh are required to be given. Question No. 1 -There is no preise definition of PIL. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by Ford Foundation in USA has defined Public Interest Litigation thus: Public interest Law is the name that has recently been given to efforts to provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that the ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the poor, envinronmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others. (See 'Administrative Law' by Justice C.K. Thakka(sic) 1992 Edn, ELC, pp 587-588) 13. In the Indian context, the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Others, AIR 1982 SC 149 : (1981) 1 SCC 87 Supp : (1982) 2 SCR 365 defined Public Interest Litigation as a 'judicially innovated new strategic device for the purpose of providing access to justice to large masses of people who are denied their basic human rights and to give judicial redress for legal wrong or injury caused to such determinate class of persons'. 14. The concept of PIL is unique and it has now become a part of Indian Law. It is well settled that the Court exercising power of judicial review should be guarded from being misused by meddlesome interlopers and busybodies who attempt to use PIL jurisdiction for political purposes, and for wrecking ver(sic)eance for personal gain. In Shri Sachidanand Pandey and Another Vs. It is well settled that the Court exercising power of judicial review should be guarded from being misused by meddlesome interlopers and busybodies who attempt to use PIL jurisdiction for political purposes, and for wrecking ver(sic)eance for personal gain. In Shri Sachidanand Pandey and Another Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1109 : (1987) 1 CompLJ 211 : (1987) 1 JT 425 : (1987) 1 SCALE 311 : (1987) 2 SCC 295 : (1987) 2 SCR 223 : (1987) 1 UJ 641 the action of the Government in allotting a part of Calcutta Zoological Garden for construction of a Five-star Hotel was challenged. While observing that when any complaint is made that Government action is contrary to Article 48-A of the Constitution of India, obliging the State to protect and improve the environment, the Apex Court held, that the Court must examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind and irrelevancies excluded, and that the Court may also give necessary directions without resorting to nicely balanced relevant considerations, which can only be resorted to by the executive. The Apex Court further held that Public Interest Litigation at the instance of the petitioner therein is not bonafide. Justice B.Khalid (as he then was) in his concurrent opinion while observing that there is something more than what meets the eye held in as under: ...Public Interest Litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to Courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If Courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of Public Interest Litigation, the traditional litigation will suffer and the Courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions. (emphasis supplied) 15. In AIR 1991 420 (SC) the facts in brief before the Supreme Court were as mentioned hereafter. The petitioner therein, who was an influential businessmen, obtained licence for coal trading. He approached Tata Iron and Steel Company with a request to supply him more quantity of slurry from West Bokaro Colleries at Ghatotand. The said request was refused. The petitioner, therefore, removed the slurry unauthorisedly. The petitioner therein, who was an influential businessmen, obtained licence for coal trading. He approached Tata Iron and Steel Company with a request to supply him more quantity of slurry from West Bokaro Colleries at Ghatotand. The said request was refused. The petitioner, therefore, removed the slurry unauthorisedly. A criminal case was filed against him u/s 379 and 411 IPC read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. When the matters were pending before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hazaribagh, the petitioner initiated proceedings before the High Court of Patna, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions for permitting him to collect slurry from the reyathi land. The said petition was dismissed. He then filed another writ petition seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to implement the Full Bench judgment of the High Court to the effect that slurry, which came from the washeries can be sold by the State Government to any person without sanction of the Central Government. Having failed in his contention that the company had no right to sell the slurry, which was discharged from the washeries, the petitioner again filed writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Director of Collieries to restrain West Bokaro Collieries from discharging slurry/sludge from its washeries at Ghatotand into Bokaro River. The Supreme Court having noticed the facts from various counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the official and unofficial respondents declined to entertain the writ petition as PIL and dismissed the same by imposing costs. It observed therein: ...Right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be determined to the quality of life. A petition under Article 32 for the prevention of pollution is maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by a group of social workers or journalists. But recourse to proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution should be taken by a person genuinely interested in the protection of society on behalf of the community. A petition under Article 32 for the prevention of pollution is maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by a group of social workers or journalists. But recourse to proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution should be taken by a person genuinely interested in the protection of society on behalf of the community. Public Interest Litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity.... (Emphasis supplied) In Raunaq International Limited Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Others, AIR 1999 SC 393 : (1999) 1 ARBLR 431 : (1998) 8 JT 411 : (1998) 6 SCALE 456 : (1999) 1 SCC 492 : (1998) 3 SCR 421 Supp : (1999) 1 UJ 600 : (1999) AIRSCW 53 the Supreme Court ruled that: When a petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation challenging the award of a contract by the State of any public body to a particular tenderer, the Court must satisfy itself that the party which has brought the litigation is litigating bonafide for public good. The Public Interest Litigation should not be merely a cloak for attaining private ends of a third party or of the party bringing the petition. The Court can examine the previous record of public service rendered by the organisation bringing Public Interest Litigation, Even when a public interest is entertained the Court must be careful to weigh conflicting public interests before intervening. Intervention by the Court may ultimately result in delay in the execution of the Project. (emphasis supplied) In Malik Brothers Vs. Narendra Dadhich and Ors, AIR 1999 SC 3211 : (1999) 3 ARBLR 187 : (1999) 4 CompLJ 119 : (1999) 6 JT 266 : (1999) 5 SCALE 212 : (1999) 6 SCC 552 : (1999) 1 SCR 732 Supp : (1999) 2 UJ 1324 : (1999) AIRSCW 3178 : (1999) 7 Supreme 332 the respondent claiming himself to be a taxpayer filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as PIL questioning the arbitration award in favour of the appellant contending that the award caused serious injury to the public exchequer in that the value of the land sought to be sold in public auction in favour of the appellant was far greater than the value at which the it was to be handed over to the appellant pursuant to the arbitration award. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the writ petition and quashed the resolution of the Indore Development Authority referring the dispute to arbitration. While allowing the appeal, heavy costs against the respondent were imposed. The Supreme Court after referring to the observations made by Justice B.Khalid in Sachidanand's case (supra) held: ...It is necessary to bear in mind that a Public Interest Litigation is usually entertained by a Court for the purpose of vindicating public interest. The real purpose of entertaining such application is the vindication of the rule of law, effective access to justice to the economically weaker class and meaning full realisation of the fundamental rights. The directions and commands issued by the Courts of law in a Public Interest Litigation are for the betterment of the society at large and not for benefiting any individual. But if the Court finds that in the garb of a Public Interest Litigation actually an individual's interest is sought to be carried out or protected, it would be the bounden duty of the Court not to entertain such petition as otherwise the very purpose of innovation of public interest litigation will be frustrated. It is in fact a litigation in which a person is not aggrieved personally but brings an action on behalf of the downtrodden mass for the redressal of their grievance. (emphasis supplied) 16. The law, therefore, may be taken as well settled that if the Court finds that in the garb of PIL an individual's interest is sought to be protected, it would be the bounden duty of the Court not to entertain such petitions as otherwise, the very purpose of innovation of PIL will be frustrated. 17. Respondent No. 9-JETL in the counter-affidavit stated that Dr. R. Srikanth, the President of the petitioner-association has active connections with Cure Environment Services as well as Envirocure India. He has approached JETL on 4-10-1996 with a proposal to undertake a project connected with Effluent Treatment/Waste Minimisation and Hazardous Waste Management. The said letter was addressed on the letter pad of Cure Environment Services. Dr. R. Srikanth, was asked by JETL to make a presentation before the Professors of JNTU as well as Retired Scientists from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. He, however, sent a project report vide letter dated 12-2-1997. The proposal sent by him was rejected by JETL. The said letter was addressed on the letter pad of Cure Environment Services. Dr. R. Srikanth, was asked by JETL to make a presentation before the Professors of JNTU as well as Retired Scientists from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. He, however, sent a project report vide letter dated 12-2-1997. The proposal sent by him was rejected by JETL. The allegation that the writ petition is filed with oblique motive has not been denied by the petitioner specifically. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, an allegation is made that Dr. R. Srikanth approached JETL on the letters telephone request, and that it is purely a personal affair, and it is not connected with the subject-matter of the writ petition. We are afraid, we cannot accept the explanation of the petition. 18. The petitioner, in support of his credentials, placed before this Court two research papers. One research paper is titled "Heavy Metal Content in Forage Grass Grown in Urban Sewage Sludge", by R. Srikanth, Ch. Shravan Kumar and Anees Khanum, Limnology Lab, Department of Botany and Biochemistry, Osmania University, Hyderabad. The paper was published in Indian Journal, Environment and Health Vol. 34, No. 2, 103-107 (1992). The other research paper is titled "Lead Cadmium and Chromium Levels in Vegetables Grown in Urban Sludge -Hyderabad, India", by R. Srikanth and S. Raja Papi Reddy, Hydrobiology Laboratory, Department of Botany, Osmania University. This research paper was published in Food Chemistry Journal 40 (1991) 229-234. The petitioner also placed before the Court, a research article titled "Cadmium Levels in the Urine of Male Sewage Sludge Farmers of Hyderabad, India by R. Srikanth. Anees Khanum, Vasant Rao, Division of Environmental Science, Department of Botany, Nizam College, P.G. Center, Hyderabad, India. This article was published in the journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 43:1-6, 1994. The petitioner-association was registered on 26-2-1994 under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Regulation Act, 1350 F. These few facts show that from 1991 the petitioner had some knowledge about the alleged adverse effects of letting out untreated sewage and industrial effluents into the River Musi. Though the petitioner got the association registered in February, 1994, he did not choose to approach this Court or any other Court till 19-4-1999, the date on which the present writ petition was tiled. Though the petitioner got the association registered in February, 1994, he did not choose to approach this Court or any other Court till 19-4-1999, the date on which the present writ petition was tiled. The affidavit tiled by the petitioner is silent as regards the petitioner's previous public service or such public service by the petitioner-association. As held by the Supreme Court in I.V.R. Constructions's case (supra), the Court can examine the previous record of public service rendered by the organisation in Public Interest Litigation to find out the genuineness with which the cause is brought before it by invoking its PIL jurisdiction. Having regard to these facts, we must hold that the petitioner chose to file this writ petition targeting respondent No. 9-JETL only when JETL refused to give a project costing about Rs. 3,76,000/- to the petitioner. Therefore, we hold that the writ petition is not bonafide. The first question is answered accordingly. Question No. 2 - As observed by the Supreme Court in Sachidanand's case (supra), even where the petitioner's attempt is not bonafide, the Court can still examine the allegations, especially when violations of fundamental rights like Article 21 read with Article 48-A of the Constitution of India are brought before this Court. The affidavit filed by the petitioner, the counter-affidavit filed by HMWSSB and JETL reveal that River Musi, which traverses through the city of Hyderabad over a stretch of 20 Kms. has virtually become a drainage channel, both due to letting out domestic sewage and waste as well as by letting out treated sewage and treated industrial effluents. Though the treated effluents from ASTP are let out into the downstream or Nallacheruvu, the APPCB does not deny the fact that JETL release toxic effluents into the closed K & S main pipeline. This Court, therefore, cannot ignore these circumstances. Hence, we propose to examine this case, though we are aware that W.P. No. 1056 of 1990, filed by India Enviro-Legal Council is statedly still pending before the Supreme Court. 19. Every industrial activity necessarily results in release of both liquid and solid waste. These industrial effluents cannot be let out into the land or surface water sources like drains, nalas and lakes. 19. Every industrial activity necessarily results in release of both liquid and solid waste. These industrial effluents cannot be let out into the land or surface water sources like drains, nalas and lakes. As per the provisions of the Water Act, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules made thereunder, all industrial units have to maintain standards before letting out liquid as well as solid effluents from their industrial units. Having regard to the high costs involved in establishing Effluent Treatment Plant, the small-scale industries cannot be expected to establish such plants by spending huge amounts. Therefore, in the year 1987, an idea was mooted to establish Common Effluent Treatment Plants. Accordingly, respondent No. 9-JETL was established. The modus operandi involves collecting industrial effluents from various industrial units, who have since become members of JETL, by trucks and treating them at one place before being let out into the surface drains. JETL has a capacity to treat M3/day of effluents. Alleging that there has been unchecked pollution of surface water sources and agricultural lands due to discharge of chemicals by industrial units at Patancheru Industrial Area, and other such areas, writ petitions have been filed before this Court as well as Supreme Court. One such case was filed by India Enviro-Legal Council under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. In the said writ petition being W.P(C) No. 1056 of 1990, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12-5-1998 passed the following orders in IA Nos. 2, 9 and 11: In respect of the CETP at Jeedimetla, it has been urged before us that this plant is functioning more efficiently than the other two plants. In the comprehensive report on Effluent Management in Nakkavagu Drainage Basin, submitted by the Central Pollution Control Board in March, 1998, in paragraph 8.5, certain recommendations were made to make the plant more effective. In respect of recommendation l of paragraph 8.5 (page 68), learned Counsel for JETL has stated that measures under this proposal will be completed by September, 1998. Regarding recommendation 2, learned Counsel for the Jeedimetla plant has stated that there will be no difficulty in conforming to sewer standards, as stipulated from September, 1998. Recommendation 3 has already been carried out on 4th February, 1998. In respect of recommendation 4, JETL requires the State Government to identify the land which can be used by them as landfill. Regarding recommendation 2, learned Counsel for the Jeedimetla plant has stated that there will be no difficulty in conforming to sewer standards, as stipulated from September, 1998. Recommendation 3 has already been carried out on 4th February, 1998. In respect of recommendation 4, JETL requires the State Government to identify the land which can be used by them as landfill. The State Government shall identify such land and inform JETL on or before 31 -8-1998. We also give directions in terms of recommendation 5 namely that JETL shall restrict their member industries to neighbourhood concept. In respect of recommendation 6 in paragraph 8.5, we are informed that CPCB is proposing to inspect the JETL by the end of this month and will submit a further report in that connection as a supplementary report. Report should contain specific recommendations in respect of that plant, and shall be submitted before 15th October, 1998. 20. In furtherance of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, CPCB, respondent No. 2 herein submitted a report to the Supreme Court in October, 1998 making certain recommendations, which are to the following effect: In the light of the aforesaid observations, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is of the opinion that the unit operations employed by Jeedimetla Effluent Treatment Limited (JETL) after incorporating the suggestions given by CPCB are relevant and adequate. The performance of CETP is also observed to be satisfactory. The organisational capacity of JETL management is upto the mark. The pollution control with respect of JETL is thus a matter of routine operation and maintenance. APPCB may now deal the matter on their own, and intervention by any central agency is not required. However, the State Pollution Control Board shall ensure the following points: * There will be no new member/and no additional industrial load from outside Jeedimetla area in the present CETP at Jeedimetla. * Neighbourhood concept and single membership issue shall be sorted out in consultation with other CETPs. * The periodic monitoring of JETL effluent at the outlet of CETP needs to be done, and in the event of violation, fines may be imposed as per fixed norms. * Neighbourhood concept and single membership issue shall be sorted out in consultation with other CETPs. * The periodic monitoring of JETL effluent at the outlet of CETP needs to be done, and in the event of violation, fines may be imposed as per fixed norms. * The State Pollution Control Board in consultation with JETL management shall evolve a programme for gradual reduction to total dissolved solids either at individual industry level, or at combined level so as to ensure that the microbial activities at aeration tanks is not perturbed and from the point of view of desirable limit in combined wastewater discharge at Amberpet Sewage Treatment Plant considering the beneficial uses of receiving water body (canal/river). * The APPCB shall instruct the JETL management for proper storage of ETP sludge at their own premises till the common TSDF facility is developed. 21. After receiving the said report, on 10-11-1998, the Supreme Court issued the following directions: 1. There will be no new member and no additional industrial load from outside Jeedimetla area in the present CETP at Jeedimetla. 2. Neighbourhood concept and single membership issue shall be sorted out in consultation with other CETPs. 3. There will be periodic monitoring by the State Pollution Control Board of JETL effluents at the outlet of CETP and in the event of violation, fines may be imposed as per the norms fixed by the said Board. 4. The State Pollution Control Board, in consultation with JETL management, shall evolve a programme for gradual reduction of total dissolved solids either at individual industry level or at combined level so as to ensure that the microbial activities at aeration tank is not perturbed and also from the point of desirable limit is combined wastewater discharge at Amberpet sewage treatment plant considering the beneficial uses of receiving water body (canal/river). 5. The State Board shall instruct the JETL management in proper storage of ETP sludge at their own premises till the common TSDF facility is developed. 22. Inviting reference to the report of the CPCB as well as the directions of the Supreme Court, the learned Counsel for APPCB and JETL submit that as directed by the Supreme Court, the former is regularly monitoring the treated effluents a the outlet of the treatment plant. 22. Inviting reference to the report of the CPCB as well as the directions of the Supreme Court, the learned Counsel for APPCB and JETL submit that as directed by the Supreme Court, the former is regularly monitoring the treated effluents a the outlet of the treatment plant. The learned Counsel for the APPCB also submits that if there is any violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, or in the event of non-maintenance of standards, as fixed under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, APPCB would take appropriate action against respondent No. 9. In this context, learned Counsel for JETL has placed before us a communication bearing Lr. No. 8/PCB/LFO/2001, dated 23-6-2001, whereunder the APPCB communicated the decision of the Clearance Committee to give consent for operation u/s 25 of the Water Act, for this year. 23. There cannot be any manner of doubt that respondent No. 9 is bound by the conditions imposed by APPCB while issuing consent for operation as well as to scrupulously maintain the standards laid down under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. It is also bound to adhere to the guidelines/directions issued by the Supreme Court in the order dated 10-11-1998. 24. A perusal of various affidavits, filed in this case, has caused us great anxiety. The growth of forage grass and vegetables in the riverbed of Musi, the stagnation of sewage water becoming breeding grounds for mosquitoes, and the groundwater getting polluted and contaminated, especially with E.Coli bacteria and other heavy metals like Chromium, Cadmium, Selenium, Zinc etc. is a cause for serious great concern. Though APPCB, based on the reports of Institute of Preventive Medicine, Hyderabad, CPCB, as well as their own reports states that as on today the presence of heavy metals in groundwater at twelve surveyed places is not alarming, is no solace. Further, admittedly, the food chain linkage has not been established, and they have yet to conduct tests by analyzing blood samples, hair samples, legumes and para-grass samples with the help of Institute of Preventive Medicine and National Institute Nutrition. Nandanavanam Project, which is said to have been taken up in accordance with the project report prepared by E-Planning Collaborative, Ahmedabad, it is yet to make progress. Nandanavanam Project, which is said to have been taken up in accordance with the project report prepared by E-Planning Collaborative, Ahmedabad, it is yet to make progress. The proposal of HMWSSB to set up new Sewage Treatment Plants at Attapur, Nagole and Nallacheruvu, is yet to receive administration and financial sanction of the Government of A.P. The action initiated by the District Administration for shifting 231 polluting industries, as identified by EPTRI, cannot be ignored. 25. All the above circumstances cumulatively suggest that it is high time that immediate steps are taken in right earnest as otherwise the lives of the people living in the city would be in danger either directly or indirectly-directly by consuming the vegetables, which are grown in the riverbed of Musi, and indirectly by drinking of milk of buffaloes, which eat the grass grown in the riverbed, besides malaria causing mosquitoes. Groundwater is polluted with E.Coli, and this has to be remedied immediately. 26. As observed by P.A. Choudary, J in T. Damodhar Rao and Others Vs. The Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Others, AIR 1987 AP 171 the protection of environment is not only the duty of a citizen, but is also an obligation of the State and all other State organs, including the Courts. This Court is under an obligation vide Directive Principles of State Policy not only prevent the River Musi from being polluted, but also to conserve the river system, whose value to the society cannot be determined in monetary terms. 27. In view of the totality of circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition with the following declarations/directions: 1. We declare that the writ petition, filed by Dr. R. Srikanth, President of the petitioner-association, is not bonafide; 2. In the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Sachidanand's case (supra), even where litigation brought before the Court is not bonafide, the Court is under an obligation to examine the complaint made with regard to violation of right to healthy environment for it affects Article 21 of the Constitution of India; 3. We direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh and APPCB (respondent Nos. We direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh and APPCB (respondent Nos. 3 and 5) to constitute a High Level Committee to regularly monitor the activities/ functions/operations of respondent No. 9-JETL so that it would abide by the directions issued by the Supreme Court as well as adheres to the standards fixed by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests for maintaining Common Effluent Treatment Plants; 4. We direct HMWSSB to regularly monitor K & S main pipeline from JETL to Balanagar manhole No. 176, and from there to ASTP, on day to day or weekly basis to find out and prevent any leakages and also to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorised discharge of domestic waste and sewage into duplicate K & S sewage pipeline; 5. We direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh (respondent No. 3) to initiate appropriate steps for improving the environment, of the riverbed and the banks of Musi River, in the city of Hyderabad. The parties shall be at liberty to approach the Court for any further directions or clarifications in relation to the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.