All India Lokadhikar Sangathan vs. Union Of India

62 W.P(C)No. 725 OF 1994

ITEM No.1	Court No. 2	SECTION PIL
		A/N MATTER

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(Civil) No.725/1994@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

NEWS ITEM"HINDUSTAN TIMES"A.Q.F.M.YAMUNA Petitioner (s)

VERSUS

CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ANR Respondent (s) (With appln.(s) for directions and impleading party and Office Report)

With I.A. No. 20 & 21 in W.P.(C) 4677 of 1985 M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India

With I.A. Nos. 1207, 1183, 1216 and 1251. (With O.R.)

Date : 06/11/2001 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT

	For Appearing parties:
			Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. (AC)
			Mr. M C Mehta, in person (NP)
	For UOI		Mr. H N Salve, S.G.<br>Mr. Krishan Mahajan, Adv.<br>Mr. K C Kaushik, Adv.<br>Mr. C V Subba Rao, Adv.<br>Mr. S Wasim A Qadri, Adv.<br>Mr. C Radhakrishnan, Adv.<br>Mr. S N Terdol, Adv.<br>Mr. B V Balram Das, Adv.<br>Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
	For MCD		Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv.
	For CPCB		Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv.
	For DPCC		Mr. D N Goburdhan, Adv.<br>Mr. R C Verma, Adv.<br>Ms. Kiran Kapoor, Adv.<br>Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.

...2/-

For NCT Delhi, Mr. D N Goburdhan, Adv. Development Ms. Pinky Anand, Adv. Commissioner Ms. Gita Luthra, Adv. For Haryana Pollution Mr. Mahabir Singh, Adv. Control Board For NCR Planning Ms. Shiel Sethi, Adv. Board For Delhi Jal Board Mr. R S Suri, Adv. For UP & UP Mr. Ajay K. Agrawal, Adv. Jal Nigam Ms. Alka Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Y P Singh, Adv. Mr. Arohi Bhalla, Adv. Mr. C Sidharth, Adv. Ms. Anamika Agrawal, Adv. For Municipal Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Adv. Corpn. Ghaziabad Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Adv. Mr. J P Dhanda, Adv. Mr. V B Saharya, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Bana,Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. M/s Lawyers Associated,Adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi,Adv. Mr. S.K. Mehta,Adv. Mr. M.L. Lohoty,Adv. Mr. Girish Chandra,Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv. Mr. M.K. Diwakaran Nambordiri,Adv. Mr. Prashant Chaudhary,Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Indu Malhotra,Adv. M/s. Maqbool Mishra & Co. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Adv.

...3/-

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

................L.......I.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....J

In the order dated 11th October, 2000 it was inter-alia directed that suggestions would be given with regard to treatment of sewage in such a way that with effect from March, 2003, no untreated sewage should go to river Yamuna. The latest data with regard to water quality, which has been filed by C.P.C.B. shows that since at least two-three years there has been no improvement in the water quality. The oxygen in the water after it enters Delhi is still nil while at the same time the total coliforms from 600 go upto 7 crores and faecal coliforms goes from 34 to 1 crore 41 lacs at Nizammudin. It is this deterioration of water quality which has become a serious health hazard for the inhabitants of Delhi. The parameters which are laid down by the Government itself are not being adhered to. The Government with all the resources at their command are under a duty and obligation to ensure that unpolluted water or tolerable standard of water is maintained. How this is to be achieved is for the Government to decide. All that the Court is concerned with is to ensure and direct that the parameters laid down under statutory provisions with regard to the quality of the water are attained.

...4/-

The Delhi Administration shall file an affidavit giving the time schedule as to what it proposes to do and also indicate the phases in which the pollution level will come down in order to ensure that by March, 2003 no un-treated sewage enters river Yamuna. On the said affidavit being filed, appropriate orders will be passed. Affidavit be filed within two weeks.

List after two weeks.

.SP1

.SP2

(S.L. Goyal)	(Kanchan Jain)
Court Master	AR-cum-PS