ORDER WP (C) No. 725 of 1994 1. Pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 12-12-2005 Mr Nigam, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and Mr Arun Mathur, CEO, Delhi Jal Board, are present in court. 2. We have heard learned counsel and perused the record, including various orders passed by this Court from time to time, various affidavits filed in the last five years and various assurances given to this Court in those affidavits and noted in the court proceedings. At this stage, it is not necessary to again recapitulate those orders. The gist of some of the orders and some of the affidavits has been noted in detailed order passed on 12-4-2005. The present order is in continuation thereof. 3. The main issue the court has been examining for over a decade is about the polluted water in Delhi. At least more than five years ago, it was represented that Delhi would be provided with at least 'C' category of water The main problem of polluted water is on account of pollution of River Yamuna. The pollution of water takes place when the same enters Delhi. Our attention has, inter alia, been invited to the recent affidavit dated 1-12-2005 filed by the Central Pollution Control Board. That affidavit shows that water quality gets affected at Palla, a point at which it enters Delhi. The results of various monitoring conducted between 8-2-2005 and 3-10-2005 in nine rounds indicate that the water quality with respect to dissolved oxygen (DO) meets the desired criteria at Palla and thereafter the deterioration starts. The affidavit also gives the details of 22 rounds of monitoring at various places in Delhi and states that none of the drains were meeting the criteria for one or the other indicator parameters. It further states that the Board has submitted the result of 92 rounds of monitoring since 1999 but. there has been deterioration instead of improvement in the quality of water. The deterioration becomes evident when charts filed with the affidavit are examined, in particular, Table No. 1 and Table No.4. One of the causes of water pollution is massive encroachment on the bank of the river. there has been deterioration instead of improvement in the quality of water. The deterioration becomes evident when charts filed with the affidavit are examined, in particular, Table No. 1 and Table No.4. One of the causes of water pollution is massive encroachment on the bank of the river. But on the issue of removal of encroachment, we find that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is seized of the matter and has issued direction for removal of encroachment and constituted a Committee to monitor the same. We have perused the orders dated 16-11-2005 and 8-12-2005 passed by the High Court. The High Court has, inter alia, directed the Committee to take up in right earnestness and on day-to-day basis the task of removing encroachments up to 300 metres from both sides of River Yamuna in the first instance. It cannot be doubted that if Delhi residents have to be provided with 'C' category water, it is necessary, apart from other measures, to remove the encroachment on the bank of River Yamuna as also on the bank of drains. Otherwise, the likelihood is that, as in the past, crores of rupees spent may go down the drain as untreated sewage will continue to be drained into the river water. 4. It is brought to our notice that some proceedings are also pending before some learned Single Judges of the Delhi High Court. If the authorities concerned bring to the notice of the learned Judges that the Division Bench is seized of the matter and monitoring the entire matter, the learned Judges would appropriately consider the request of remitting those cases also to the Division Bench so that there is no multiplicity of proceedings. 5. We have perused the affidavits filed pursuant to the direction dated 12-12-2005. The affidavit filed by the Delhi Jal Board is far from satisfactory. We direct the said Board to file a detailed affidavit giving complete details as to what has been done hitherto before, the time taken and what it plans to do hereinafter within the specified time schedule. Apart from the appointment of consultants, the Board should also indicate its own viewpoint as well. The right of clean water of at least 'C' category cannot be made subservient to any other right, assuming there be one. This is more so when orders have been passed and assurances given to this Court. Apart from the appointment of consultants, the Board should also indicate its own viewpoint as well. The right of clean water of at least 'C' category cannot be made subservient to any other right, assuming there be one. This is more so when orders have been passed and assurances given to this Court. Keeping in view this objective to be achieved, we expect the authorities to adopt a positive constructive approach and request their counsel to give us suggestions in regard to the increase of capacity of the sewage treatment plants and other allied matters leaving the question of removal of encroachments to be dealt with by the High Court for the present. 6. The affidavit by the Delhi Jal Board shall be filed within two weeks. It would be open to other authorities also to file affidavit, if they so wish, to assist the court in issue of further directions for early achieving the object of clean water. 7. The petition is adjourned for three weeks. IAs Nos, 1855-56 8. The order dated 6-12-1996, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India noted the point raised by Mr M.C. Mehta that frequent use of large number of parks in the city for marriage and other functions are bound to degrade the environment and utility of the parks as a recreation for the public. It also noted that such user was being permitted by MCD in 1023 parks and DDA in 146 parks. It also noted that there were 141 community halls for the purpose of holding such functions. 9. The court while accepting the submission of Mr Mehta that the permitted use of the parks being recreational under the master plan, the same cannot be permitted for any other use but keeping in view the need of society, it was felt that the parks shall be brought back to normal use in a sustained manner. Therefore, the court expressed the view that MCD, NDMC and DDA shall in a phased manner stop the granting of permission for use of parks for commercial/marriage purposes, etc. 10. Almost ten years have elapsed since then and nothing has been placed on record as to what steps have been taken in stopping the use of the parks for the aforesaid purposes in a phased manner and to bring back the parks for d the normal permissible use. 10. Almost ten years have elapsed since then and nothing has been placed on record as to what steps have been taken in stopping the use of the parks for the aforesaid purposes in a phased manner and to bring back the parks for d the normal permissible use. One method of doing that could be construction of more community halls. There is nothing on record as to whether any further community halls have been constructed or not. Prima facie, one should have thought that about ten years' period is sufficient to stop the user in a phased manner. Instead of that, the user, insofar as MCD in particular is concerned, has increased. In 1996, there were 1023 parks. The court keeping in view the interest of the society permitted fifty per cent of the parks to be used for marriages, etc. which means that by 31-12-1997, only 512 parks could be used for marriages, etc. and then further steps taken on year-to-year basis to stop the user altogether in a phased manner. Instead of that, MCD admits that as of now 746 parks are being used for marriages, etc. It is far from complying with the order of the court. It is wholly irrelevant to state that since total number of parks in 1996 was 12,000 and the number has gone up to 14,000, it can increase the parks to be used for such purposes. If the number of parks has gone up, the population in the city has also increased considerably. Be that as it may, the temporary permission granted is to be read with the direction about stopping the user altogether in a phased manner. No permission was taken by MCD from the court to permit more than 512 parks to be used for marriage purposes. 11. DDA, it is claimed, is granting permission for use of 70 parks for the aforesaid purposes. The total number of parks is 146. It is implicit in the aforesaid order passed in 1996 that even the temporary user of fifty per cent parks for marriages, etc. shall be stopped altogether in a phased manner and that the regulatory authority will ensure that the user does not cause any inconvenience or nuisance to others. In fact, MCD has spelt out sixteen conditions on which the parks are let out for holding functions. shall be stopped altogether in a phased manner and that the regulatory authority will ensure that the user does not cause any inconvenience or nuisance to others. In fact, MCD has spelt out sixteen conditions on which the parks are let out for holding functions. Nothing is placed on record either by MCD or by DDA as to what action, if any, was taken against anyone in the last ten years who may have not properly used a the parks, violated the rules and caused inconvenience. The applicant has placed on record certain photographs showing construction of a big "pandal" as also the placement of a generator in the DDA park. There is nothing on record as to how the compliance with the conditions is ensured and who are the officers to ensure the compliance. 12. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we direct DDA as well as MCD b to file affidavits of its Vice-Chairman and the Commissioner respectively within four weeks to place on record steps taken to stop the user in the phased manner and, if not, reasons therefor and what steps are at least now contemplated to be taken having regard to the spirit of the orders passed in 1996. DDA shall specifically place on record its stand as to whether the green area can be used for holding of such functions which, prima facie, would be contrary to the user permissible in the master plan. The affidavits shall also state whether any additional community halls have been constructed and/or planned to be constructed to facilitate the holding of the functions of marriages, etc. 13. Adjourned for four weeks. Court Masters