Disposed

Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Karnataka

NGT15 Dec 2020IA No. 395/2020 in Original Application No. 125/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed two interim applications (I.A. No. 392/2020 by BBMP and I.A. No. 395/2020 by BDA) regarding restoration of lakes in Bangalore. The Tribunal directed the applications be considered by the Monitoring Committee, holding no further order was required at that stage.

What did the court decide?

No further order passed; applications disposed in terms of existing orders and observations regarding the Monitoring Committee.

Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Karnataka — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2020)

¶1

Item No. 02

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

I.A. No. 392/2020 & I.A. No. 395/2020 IN Original Application No. 125/2017

¶5

Court on its own Motion

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Karnataka Respondent

¶9

BBMP and Bangalore Development Authority ………… Applicants in IA 392/2020 & I.A. No. 395/2020 respectively

¶10

Date of hearing: 15.12.2020

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SATYAWAN SINGH GARBYAL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶12

For Applicant: Mr. Raj Panjwani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saransh Jain, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

¶13

Ms. Madhavi Diwan, ASG with Mr. Darpan K.M., Advocate for Applicant in I.A. No. 395/2020 Mr. Brijender Chahar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kashi Vishweshwar, Advocate for Applicant in IA 392/2020

¶14

Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for CPCB

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The issue before this Tribunal is remedial action for restoration of

¶17

Bellandur, Agara and Varthur lakes at Bangalore, including preventing discharge and dumping of pollutants, removing encroachments from catchment area and other steps for restoration.

¶18

The matter has been earlier considered in light of a Committee

¶19

constituted by this Tribunal, headed by Shri Raj Panjwani, Senior

¶20

¶21

Advocate. The Committee visited the site and gave its report dated 31.05.2018. On consideration of the matter, order dated 06.12.2018 was passed accepting the report and requiring removal of encroachments, stopping of discharge of pollution in the lake and preparation of an action plan under the supervision of the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and the BBMP. The Tribunal also constituted an Oversight Committee headed by Justice Santosh Hegde, former Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶22

Thereafter, the matter was further considered in light of the status reports submitted by the concerned authorities and further directions were issued on 21.10.2019, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 9666-68 of 2019, State of Karnataka v. D. Kupendra Reddy & Ors . Further directions were issued on 18.12.2019. The Monitoring Committee, headed by Justice Hegde, was requested to review the progress. The report dated 06.03.2019 from the Monitoring Committee was dealt with by the Tribunal on 13.08.2020. Submissions of learned Amicus were considered in para 6 as follows:-

¶23

“6……The BDA has wrongly understood that biodiversity parks are to be set up within the lake boundary. Such parks are to be set up along the periphery of the lake boundary . Enquiry should be conducted about the illegality in laying the pipeline by the Minor Irrigation Department. Construction of retaining wall should not result in reduction of width of the water bodies . Details of action taken by the BBMP against illegal structures are required to be furnished. BBMP should survey and notify the rajakaluves for purposes of buffer zones of 50, 25 and 15 meters.

¶24

The BBMP has filed its submission that the retaining walls will not reduce the size of the drains and are necessary to prevent illegal constructions.

¶25

We are of the view that the observations of the Amicus may be duly considered by the monitoring Committee and appropriate action taken. We may consider the issues which may survive after the next report of the monitoring Committee .”

¶26

¶27

In above background, we may consider the two I.A.s being I.A. No. 392/2020 on behalf of the BBMP and I.A. No. 395/2020 on behalf of the Bangalore Development Authority. Prayers in I.A. No. 392/2020 are:-

¶28

a) To take on record the application and the Annexure contained therein;

¶29

b) To pass further direction/permission permitting the BBMP to proceed with proposals outlined in Annexure 4 (Citizens Water Way Project) as may be required in the interest of justice and equity;

¶30

c) To permit the Applicant BBMP to carry out development work in the 11.4 km storm water drain;

¶31

d) Such other order/orders as may be required in interests of justice and equity.”

¶32

Prayers in I.A. No. 395/2020 are:-

¶33

a) To take on record the application and the attachments contained therein;

¶34

b) To pass further direction/permission as may be required in the interest of justice and equity;

¶35

c) To permit BDA to establish bio-diversity parks at the proposed locations in Bellandur And Varthur lakes.”

¶36

Ms. Madhavi Diwan, Learned ASG appearing for the BDA in I.A. No. 395/2020 fairly submitted that in the light of order of this Tribunal dated 13.08.2020 quoted above, the issue is to be considered by the Monitoring Committee.

¶37

We find that the issues raised in both the applications can be first looked into by the Monitoring Committee in the course of considering remedial measures for restoration of the lake. The Committee has necessary Experts to assist. The Tribunal has already laid down broad parameters for carrying out the restoration work, consistent with the environmental concerns.

¶38

¶39

In view of above, no further order is called for at this stage. The I.A.s will stand disposed of in terms of orders already passed and observations hereinabove.

¶40

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

Dr. S.S. Garbyal, EM

Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM

December 15, 2020 I.A. No. 392/2020 & I.A. No. 395/2020 In Original Application No. 125/2017 SN

¶45

Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramdevbhai Samatbhai Sanjva vs State of Gujarat

Bombay Environment Action Group vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Other Environmental Issues. vs

The Commissioner Corporation of the City of Panaji vs the Goa State Pollution Control Board

Chandra Bhal Singh vs Union of India

Chandra Bhal Singh vs Union of India

Chandra Bhal Singh vs Union of India

Chandra Bhal Singh vs Union of India

Ramdevbhai Samatbhai Sanjva vs State of Gujarat

Bombay Environment Action Group vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Bombay Environment Action Group vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Mr. Ram Baban Borkar vs Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra

Dillip Kumar Samantaray vs State of Odisha

Jayashri Rajebhosale vs State of Goa