Partly allowed

Prem Aggarwal vs

NGT3 Sept 2024IA No. 417/2024 in Original Application No. 274/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal addressed persistent non-compliance with Section 24 of the Water Act, 1974 by Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam regarding untreated sewage. It allowed time for a solution, directed U.P. Jal Nigam to submit a response, and conditionally exempted the DJB CEO from personal appearance pending cost payment.

What did the court decide?

One month time granted to Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam to resolve sewage issue; U.P. Jal Nigam directed to submit reports; DJB CEO exempted from appearance conditionally subject to a Rs. 50,000 cost.

Prem Aggarwal vs — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Court No. 2

¶2

Item No. 09

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 274/2022 ( IA NO 417/2024 )

¶5

Prem Aggarwal & Ors. Applicant(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

Government of NCT of Delhi Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 03.09.2024

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Applicant: None Respondents: Mr. Jyoti Mendiratta and Ananya Basudha, Advocates for Respondents no-1,4,5 and 6 with Mr. N. P. Maurya EE, IFCD, GNCTD. Ms. Sakshi Popli, Advocate for DPCC (through VC) Ms. Puja Kalra and Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocates for Respondent no. 2 Mr. Shadan Farasat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Vibhav Mishra, Ms. Samridhi and Mr. Prannv Dhawan Advocates for Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam with Mr. Vikramaditya Singh Malik, Municipal Commissioner. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocates for UPPCB (through VC) Richa Kapoor, Ms. Atika Singh and Ms. Udipti Chopra, Advocates for DJB with Mr. Ajay Gupta, Chief Engineer Nodal (Drainage) Mr. Siddharth Sengar Advocate for respondent No. 10 Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma Advocate for respondent No. 21 (through VC) Mr. Dev Shukla, Advocate for Respondents no. 14 and 22

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This order is in continuation of the earlier order 08.08.2024, in para 24 whereof we have noted that Delhi Jal Board (hereinafter referred

¶13

to as ‘ DJB ’) and Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are under statutory responsibility of handling, management, processing and treatment of liquid waste so as to comply with the requirement of Section 24 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Water Act, 1974 ’) and since they have failed to comply the same, Chief Executive Officer, DJB and Municipal Commissioner, Ghaziabad were

¶14

¶15

directed to appear before Tribunal to avail opportunity as to why they be not prosecuted for committing offence under Section 43 of Water Act, 1974 and also why Environmental Compensation may not be imposed for continuous violation of mandate of Section 24 of Water Act, 1974.

¶16

Sh. Vikramaditya Singh Malik, Municipal Commissioner, Ghaziabad is present personally and also represented through counsel. Though some documents were placed before us to show that some attempt is being made for treatment of untreated discharge but we find that consistent, persistent and continuous non-compliance of Section 24 of Water Act, 1974 is there even till date and is not likely to be resolved in near future. It is pointed out that 68 MLD STP is said to be under construction which was approved on 09.06.2023 and work commenced on 11.12.2023 but only 18% work till date has been completed. It is also stated in para 6 of status report dated 07.08.2024 that 145 km sewer network will be connected with proposed 68 MLD STP out of which 40 km sewer network has been completed. It will connect 67669 household sewers. It is said that completion date of above work as assured by UP Jal Nigam, Urban is June 2026 and budget of project has been sanctioned in Amrit 2.0.

¶17

Status report is virtually an admission to show that huge quantity of untreated sewage is ultimately meeting river Yamuna causing pollution thereof on account of lack of proper arrangement made by Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad and therefore violation of Section 24 of Water Act, 1974 is evident.

¶18

Learned counsel for Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad stated that Municipal Commissioner may be allowed some short reasonable time so that he may sit in conference with other concerned agencies to ponder

¶19

¶20

over immediate or temporary solution of the present problem and submit an action taken report afresh before Tribunal. It is also argued before Tribunal that for sewerage and sewage disposal, Municipal Corporation is not the only Local Body responsible but under Section 14 (1) of U.P water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, U.P Jal Nigam also is under statutory obligation to carryout functions relating to preparation, execution, promotion and financing schemes for sewerage and sewerage disposal which includes every aspect of providing sewerage and sewerage disposal arrangements. He therefore submitted that even U.P Jal Nigam is equally responsible as Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad.

¶21

It is also evident from record that the progress of work of 68 STP MLD is very slow and when pointed out, learned counsel appearing for Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad stated that since work is being executed by U.P Jal Nigam, they are answerable for delay in execution of the work and since U.P Jal Nigam is also a party i.e. respondent 8, Tribunal was deem fit to receive necessary report from U.P Jal Nigam.

¶22

Considering above facts and circumstances, we allow one month’s time to Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad to work out immediate solution for treatment of untreated sewage so that continuous pollution of river Yamuna may be arrested.

¶23

Further, with regard to provisions for sewerage and sewerage disposal, since U.P Jal Nigam has also been shown to be under statutory functions under U.P water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, we direct respondent 8 to submit its response, particularly in respect of execution of construction work of 68 MLD STP at Ghaziabad, including, sewer network and also explanation for the progress of the work.

¶24

¶25

We also issue notice to Managing Director, U.P Jal Nigam, to show cause that in view of Section 14 (1) U.P water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, for discharge of untreated sewage in river Yamuna, U.P Jal Nigam is also responsible, why prosecution under section 43 of Water Act, 1974 may not be initiated against him and other responsible Authorities of UP Jal Nigam. For this purpose we direct Managing Director, U.P Jal Nigam to submit its response within one month and also appear in person before Tribunal on next date.

¶26

Coming to discharge of effluent by industries that is respondents 12 to 24 which were impleaded by Tribunal vide order dated08.08.2024, we are informed by Daleep Dhyani, learned counsel appearing for UPPCB that respondents number 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 are closed. Respondent 20 and 23 are not only closed but even the machinery etc have been dismantled. Respondents 14, 21, 22 and 24 are complying. However, we do not find any material on record in support of the above stand taken by the UPPCB.

¶27

Hence, we direct to the UPPCB to submit an additional affidavit placing on record the relevant facts in this regard.

¶28

Respondents 14 and 22 are represented by Deva Shukla, Advocate. He prays for and allowed two weeks’ time to file response.

¶29

Respondent 21 is represented by Anuj Kumar Sharma, Advocate. He also prays for and allowed two weeks’ time to file response.

¶30

We are informed by Registry that service of notices upon respondents 12, 15 to 17, 18, 19, and 24 is awaited from postal department. In respect of respondents 20 and 23, notices have been received undelivered with the postal endorsement as under:

¶31

¶32

Respondent 20: ‘ इस पते पर इस नाम की कोई फमम नहीीं है’ Respondent 23: ‘ फमम बींद है’

¶33

Learned counsel for UPPCB has stated that respondent 20 and 23 are closed and dismantled. Hence we find no occasion to issue fresh notices to respondents 20 and 23.

¶34

List this matter on 14.10.2024.

¶35

I.A No. 417 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of CEO, DJB by Ajay Gupta, Chief Engineer, Nodal (Drainage) stating that Chief Executive Officer, DJB is holding additional charge of Principal Secretary, PWD and has preoccupation, engagement and important issues, hence could not appear. From averments made in application, it appears to us that the Chief Executive Officer, DJB does not find appearance in Tribunal for assisting, consideration and disposal of O.A to be an important matter. It appears that it is not part of his duties and that is why it is not part of preoccupation, engagement and important issues as stated in para 6 of this application.

¶36

We do not find any good ground for exempting personal appearance of Chief Executive Officer, DJB and lame excuse on which he has not appeared today justify a stern action in matter.

¶37

Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate for DJB stated that in fact the Officer concerned is engaged in in arrangement of marriage function of his daughter which is to be solemnized on 14.09.2024 and she requested this Tribunal not to pass any stern order today but allow, as a last opportunity, the said Officer to appear on any date after 14.09.2024.

¶38

¶39

Though we do not find any proper justification to exempt personal appearance of Chief Executive Officer, DJB and to condone his conduct, but looking to persistent request made by counsel and also on undertaking that he will abide by other conditions, if any, imposed by Tribunal, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- with the Registrar General of this Tribunal, which at the first instance shall be paid by DJB but may recover from Officer concerned in accordance with law, we allow exemption for today and direct him to appear on next date.

¶40

I.A No. 417/2024 is accordingly disposed of.

¶41

Sudhir Agarwal, JM Dr. Afroz Ahamd, EM

¶42

September 03, 2024 Original Application No. 274/2022 (IA NO 417/2024) AB

¶43

Prem Aggarwal vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Aggarwal vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pisati Indira Reddy vs Union of India

P. Chennaiah vs the District Magistrate Masapet

Subhas Datta vs State of West Bengal

Council of Engineers vs State of Punjab

Sarita Singh vs

Raju Ram Vishnoi vs State of Rajasthan

Hassina Wajid (Sarpanch) vs State of Jammu & Kashmir

Hassina Wajid (Sarpanch) vs State of Jammu & Kashmir

Jitendra and Ors. vs

Council of Engineers vs State of Punjab

Council of Engineers vs State of Punjab

Anil Prasad and Ors. vs

Aseem Chawla vs

Raman Sharma vs