ORDER 1. This matter is pending in this Court for the last over ten years having been taken up on a news item appearing in one of the leading newspapers, titled "And Quiet Flows The Maily Yamuna", showing the polluted water in Delhi. Various orders have been passed with a view to solve the problem and to make the authorities concerned to implement the laws. Unfortunately, things have not improved; rather they have deteriorated. Very candidly, Mr B. Dutta, learned Additional Solicitor General, admits that the situation is quite emergent and alarming. It seems that despite filing affidavits and assuring this Court that appropriate steps will be taken, many of the steps have not been taken and to various queries, no answer, let alone satisfactory answer, is forthcoming. Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel and Amicus Curiae, has taken us through some of the orders and the affidavits filed with a view to demonstrate as to what assurances have been given to this Court in the last about five years without implementation thereof. In order to issue further directions, it would be useful to briefly notice as to what has happened in the last about five years, leaving aside the orders passed between 1994 and 2000. 2. On 11-10-2000, considering the facts and figures contained in the affidavit of the Chief Secretary of Delhi and commenting that the figures contained therein are not correct, this Court directed the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, to study the problem with regard to the treatment of sewage in Delhi and to file affidavit. It was specifically directed that the Government of India will give positive and concrete suggestions with regard to the implementation of the treatment capacity in such a way that with effect from March 2003, at the very earliest, no untreated sewage should go to River Yamuna. 3. Admittedly, a large quantity of untreated sewage goes to River Yamuna, which is one of the major reasons for the pollution of the water. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, on 8-11-2000, an affidavit was filed by the Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, Union of India, which suggested three-pronged strategy for improving the quality of water. Some steps were to be completed by 2003 and others by March 2005. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, on 8-11-2000, an affidavit was filed by the Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, Union of India, which suggested three-pronged strategy for improving the quality of water. Some steps were to be completed by 2003 and others by March 2005. That affidavit admits that the problem of pollution in River Yamuna has become grave through the years due to various reasons, amongst them being location of unauthorised colonies, slum clusters and non-trapping of drains. It also states that on account of lack of proper effective action, the problem has accumulated. It was, therefore, suggested that a holistic and integrated approach to the problem needs to be adopted. 5. The three-pronged strategy suggested is construction of sewage treatment plants (STPs), rehabilitation and rejuvenation of trunk sewer lines and sewering of unauthorised regularised colonies. It is further stated that these three steps alone are not enough to clean River Yamuna as there are several other factors which are also responsible for its pollution. It was suggested that on behalf of the Ministry of Urban Development and the Ministry of Environment and Forests, integrated approach is needed for tackling all sources of pollution of River Yamuna in Delhi and for restoring water quality to the desired level, which means Class 'C' water quality which essentially stipulates BOD level of 3 mg/1 (maximum), a DO of 4 mg/1 (minimum) and faecal coliform level of 500 per 100 ml. Admittedly, this minimum quality has still not been achieved, despite that affidavit and despite nearly five years having elapsed. 6. The main reasons for continuing pollution of River Yamuna pointed out are (A) lack of dilution capacity; (B) siltation and collapse of sewerage system; and (C) gap in treatment capacity. In regard to (B), it has been pointed out that the system is silted to the extent of fifty to seventy per cent and has collapsed at a number of places with the result that it is not capable a of conveying the entire quantity of intercepted sewage to the respective STPs. While, on the one hand, this is resulting in underutilisation of the existing treatment capacity, on the other hand, it is leading to discharge of large quantities of untreated sewage into the storm water drains and finally into River Yamuna. While, on the one hand, this is resulting in underutilisation of the existing treatment capacity, on the other hand, it is leading to discharge of large quantities of untreated sewage into the storm water drains and finally into River Yamuna. It was suggested that, as a first step towards cleaning River Yamuna, it is necessary to refurbish the entire network as early as possible. It was pointed out that the work was in progress and according to the Delhi Jal Board, it would be completed by December 2003. 7. In regard to (C), it has been pointed out that the main reasons for underutilisation of STPs were silting and collapse of trunk sewer system, non-availability of sewerage system in some areas, non-availability of adequate quantity of sewage, delay in commissioning of sewage pumping stations and pumping main and lack of habitation in some of the areas. On the other hand, some areas, like TransYamuna, Sen Nursing Home and Delhi Gate drains are generating much more sewage than the present available treatment capacity of those areas. The affidavit pointed out that about fortyeight per cent of waste water was discharged untreated into River Yamuna. The affidavit further points out three important parameters for defining water quality of river, being biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), dissolved oxygen (DO) and faecal coliforms, out of which faecal coliforms are considered to be most harmful to human beings as they contain the disease-causing pathogens. The affidavit further points out that there is no programme to address the pollution on account of faecal coliform. It also states that unless this pollution is tackled concurrently, the water quality of River Yamuna cannot be restored to the desired class and becomes more importantly in the background of lack of dilution capacity of River Yamuna in Delhi. Some measures were suggested in this regard so as to make it available by March 2002. What results have been achieved, we do not know as nothing has been stated. 8. Yet another reason for the pollution of water in River Yamuna given in the affidavit is that no effective action was taken to check encroachment, illegal constructions and unauthorised colonies resulting in a large number of haphazard and unplanned settlements with practically no civic facilities having come into existence. It is admitted that hardly any jhuggi/shack has been removed from unsuitable sites, such as embankment of nallas and resettlement of proper colonies. It is admitted that hardly any jhuggi/shack has been removed from unsuitable sites, such as embankment of nallas and resettlement of proper colonies. The civic problems, particularly those relating to water, drainage and sewer disposal have become formidable; admittedly, both in magnitude and complexities. Despite the aforesaid g admission, there is hardly any indication that anyone bothered to go into these questions in order to take proper action so that such illegalities are not repeated. This is the type of governance, on the admitted facts. 9. Regarding 62,000 jhuggies on River Yamuna and on the banks of the drains, for removal and resettlement, shelter was taken under lack of financial resources. The affidavit admits that nearly forty-five per cent of 140 lakh population of Delhi then was living in unauthorised colonies and slums. Of these, nearly thirty lakh people were living in nearly six lakh jhuggies and jhopries scattered in Delhi. There seems to be lack of will to control the problem. It is for the Government to implement the laws. It is no answer to say that the master plan, building bye-laws and other laws were observed in breach and the authorities were silent spectators. It seems that there was connivance of officers/officials concerned without which it is quite difficult for such large-scale unauthorised acts to take place. The summary of integrated action plan has been given in the affidavit stipulating which items had to be given top priority. One of the suggested integrated action plans is to shift all the aforenoted jhuggies from the bank of River Yamuna and the drains. It was stated that taking into consideration the ground realities, it would take at least five years to complete the integrated action plan to solve the problem. 10. Five years are almost going to expire but the real and effective implementation of the integrated action plan is yet to be seen. 11. Reference can also be made to an affidavit filed about six months later i.e. 30-4-2001, which reiterated that on a realistic assessment of the magnitude of tasks involved as well as the constraints thereto, the reasonable date for completion of all the activities specified in the action plan is March 2005, which this Court may accept. In that affidavit too, a time schedule was given indicating that some of the works shall be completed by March 2003 and all others by 2005. In that affidavit too, a time schedule was given indicating that some of the works shall be completed by March 2003 and all others by 2005. The Ministry of Urban Development took the responsibility of shifting jhuggi-dwellers from the embankment of River Yamuna and agreed, of course, subject to some conditions that that responsibility will be discharged by year 2003. This affidavit also points out the feasibility of neighbouring States in the National Capital Region sharing the burden of Delhi in resettling the encroachers. However, there is nothing to show as to what concrete steps were taken in that direction. In conclusion, it was submitted that substantial progress would be made by March 2003 in the manner indicated in para (7) of the affidavit and successful implementation of the integrated action plan would be completed in its entirety by March 2005. 12. Reference can also be made to an earlier affidavit dated 19-12-2000, on the issue of availability of water. That affidavit was filed pursuant to the order dated 12-12-2000, when the then learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the National Capital Territory of Delhi, made a statement that what is stated in the affidavit of the Ministry of Urban Development is broadly agreeable to the Government of Delhi. 13. In fact, if despite the aforesaid affidavits, the action plan has not been implemented, which admittedly it has not been, It was the duty of the respective Governments to approach this Court, place the difficulties and seek extension thereof instead of this Court issuing directions from time to time thereafter to ensure the compliance with its orders. In substance, it amounts to breach of the promises and assurances given to this Court. We may note that in the order dated 10-4-2001, after observing that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution would surely include the right to clean water, which is being deprived to millions of citizens of Delhi because of large-scale pollution of River Yamuna, and that the entire pollution takes place only in the stretch through which River Yamuna passes through Delhi, namely, about twenty-two kilometres, it was directed that steps have to be taken to ensure that at least by 31-3-2003, the minimum, desired quality of water, namely, Class 'C' of River Yamuna, is achieved. It is also necessary to make a note of letter dated 28-8-2000 written by the Ministry to the State Government, Delhi Development Authority, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and New Delhi Municipal Committee to the following effect: "No. J-13036/3/96-DDIB Government of India Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation * * * Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi dated 28-8-2000 To 1. Shri P.S. Bhatnagar, Chief Secretary, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Delhi. 2. Shri P.K. Ghosh, Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. 3. Shri S.P. Aggarwal, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Delhi. 4. Shri B.P. Misra, Chairperson, New Delhi Municipal Committee, Palika Kendra, New Delhi. 5. The Development Commissioner, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Town Hall, New Delhi. Subject: Unauthorised encroachment and illegal constructions in Delhi. * * * Sir, I am directed to say that the menace of illegal encroachment/unauthorised construction in Delhi has been considered by the Government of India at its highest level and it has been decided to eliminate this menace with a firm hand. You are, therefore, requested to take strong and prompt action against all illegal constructions/ unauthorised encroachments and also against misuses of land in violation of the provisions of the master plan of Delhi. The following measures are particularly required to be enforced strictly: (i) All illegal constructions should be demolished, not cosmetically but in toto. (ii) The cost of demolition should be recovered from the illegal builders within 15 days of demolition. In case of non-payment within 15 days, the amount due should be recovered as arrears of land revenue. (iii) In all cases of illegal constructions, prosecution should invariably be launched against builders under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, Delhi Development Authority Act, New Delhi Municipal Council Act, etc. and the cases followed vigorously with the police authorities/courts. (iv) Wherever the property is on lease, action should be taken under the terms and conditions of lease agreement and re-entry effected within the shortest permissible period under such lease agreement. After re-entry, physical possession of the property should be taken by invoking the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction Act and damages collected immediately. The rates of damages/ misuse charges should be the same as per the formula followed by the L&DO and approved by the Ministry of Urban Development. After re-entry, physical possession of the property should be taken by invoking the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction Act and damages collected immediately. The rates of damages/ misuse charges should be the same as per the formula followed by the L&DO and approved by the Ministry of Urban Development. (v) In case of DDA flats, where constructions have come up beyond the condonable limits, cancellation of allotment should be carried out in addition to the demolition of 'the additional construction. Orders in respect of condonable and non-condonable items are being issued separately. (vi) In cases, where after demolition, reconstruction is done, personal responsibility of the officer-in-charge should be fixed and departmental action taken against him. (vii) In cases where illegal constructions have taken place on rural-agricultural lands, action under the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 should also be taken and such lands should be taken over as per provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Action in this respect should be taken as soon as the plots are cut by the colonisers and construction done in the shape of boundary walls, etc. In other words, construction should be nipped in the bud. If it comes up, it should be demolished immediately. Action in this respect should also be taken by the local agencies/DDA concerned as per the bye-laws pertaining to layout/services plans, etc. (viii) In all cases where party obtains stay/status quo orders, prompt action to get the stay order vacated should be taken and higher court moved, wherever necessary. (ix) All Senior Field Officers should be asked to carry out physical inspection of the area under their charge and the Supervising Officer should also make surprise checks to ensure that the subordinate staff takes immediate action to check/demolish unauthorised construction. Deterrent action should also be taken against the subordinate staff such as Building Inspectors, Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers, etc. who do not take prompt action. (x) Field Officers should be asked to maintain field diaries and submit them to the Supervisory Officer regularly. 2. It is also requested that a monthly report should be sent to the Ministry of Urban Development by the 5th of each succeeding month. 3. who do not take prompt action. (x) Field Officers should be asked to maintain field diaries and submit them to the Supervisory Officer regularly. 2. It is also requested that a monthly report should be sent to the Ministry of Urban Development by the 5th of each succeeding month. 3. In this connection, it may be noted that both Parliament and the Parliament Comultative Committee have expressed deep concern, through questions and interpolations, over the rising menace of unauthorised constructions in Delhi and the suspected connivance of the staff of the different authorities in the matter. A flying squad has been constituted in the Ministry and if, as a result of findings of this squad, it is found that subordinate staff has not done its duty or not carried out the aforesaid instructions, strict action against the subordinate/supervisory staff would be taken by the Government. Yours faithfully, sd/- (Dr. Nivedita P. Haran) Joint Secretary to the Government of India" 14. The aforesaid letter was placed before this Court by the then learned Solicitor General as noticed in the proceedings that had taken place on 9-5-2001. The then learned Solicitor General stated that the aforesaid letter has been written after approval had been accorded by the Union Cabinet which took the decision that the measures spelt out in the letter should be undertaken in an effort to come down on the menace of illegal encroachments/unauthorised constructions in Delhi. It was admitted by the then learned Solicitor General that the illegal encroachments and unauthorised constructions to a large extent contribute to polluting River Yamuna because without sewer connections, the effluents/discharge is dumped into the drains which meet River Yamuna. The letter had required all the aforesaid agencies to report monthly to the Ministry by 5th of each succeeding month. It seems from the submissions made that the letter was implemented entirely or at least substantially, in its breach. Nothing has been brought on record to show further steps which were taken to ensure compliance with the aforesaid. We may only note that the Chief Secretary of Delhi in the affidavit filed dated 23-11-2001, agreed with the suggestions about the completion of some of the steps by March 2003, and the remaining by March 2005 and specifically stated that by these measures, there will be considerable improvement in the quality of water. 15. We may only note that the Chief Secretary of Delhi in the affidavit filed dated 23-11-2001, agreed with the suggestions about the completion of some of the steps by March 2003, and the remaining by March 2005 and specifically stated that by these measures, there will be considerable improvement in the quality of water. 15. When this Court found that there has been hardly any progress despite lapse of nearly four years, an order was made on 4-8-2004 directing meeting of various officers under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of the Ministry of Urban Development. The result of the said meeting is the filing of further affidavits dated 18-11-2004, 18-1-2005 and 11-2-2005. A perusal of these affidavits shows that despite the promises made and assurances given to this Court, nothing of substance to improve the quality of water has been achieved either in 2003 and/or in 2005. The affidavits do not even give reasons as to why the integrated action plan, despite decision having been taken at the highest level of the Union Cabinet as noticed in the order dated 9-5-2001, could not be implemented in letter and spirit Now, the suggestion in these affidavits is that some of the works would continue up to 2008, some up to 2009 and some up to 2012. 16. This is a most unsatisfactory way of tackling the problem which, admittedly as per the Government's perception too, is alarming and emergent. How seriously the measures have been taken is evident from the fact that despite the orders of this Court, there is no assistance or affidavit from the National River Conservation Authority. It seems evident that the Government and its functionaries and authorities have failed in their public duty and obligations towards the citizens of Delhi. Despite all these years, they have not been able to provide clean water of Class 'C' category which had been directed years back. 17. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we direct the Secretary of the Ministry of Urban Development to personally examine the matter and file his own affidavit treating the position as emergent; giving reasons for non-compliance with the various orders and the promises and assurances given to this Court in the affidavits aforesaid and setting out the minimum time to be taken to achieve what was directed in the order dated 9-5-2001. The said affidavit shall be filed within four weeks. The said affidavit shall be filed within four weeks. All concerned are directed to fully cooperate with the Ministry of Urban Development. 18. List the matter after four weeks. Court Masters