Partly allowed

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 3/2022 in Original Application No. 80/2021 of Captain Satyender Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary Forest & Environment Department

NGT8 Apr 2024Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 3/2022 in Original Application No. 80/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal held Jaipur Development Authority liable for discharging untreated sewage in violation of environmental laws. Following RSPCB's statutory norms for computation, the Tribunal directed JDA to pay Rs. 3.82 crores as interim environmental compensation for 828 days of violation.

What did the court decide?

JDA to pay interim environmental compensation of Rs. 3,82,05,000 for 828 days of violation; balance to be paid to RSPCB within three months; RSPCB to initiate punitive action.

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 3/2022 in… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH AT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

¶2

Through Physical Hearing (With Hybrid Option) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 80/2021(CZ) (M.A. No.03/2022)(CZ)

¶3

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶4

CAPTAIN SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH R/O Devi Niketan Compound, 8, Sardar Patel Marg Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001

¶5

...Applicant(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

¶8

Through Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government Secretariat Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005

¶9

2. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through its Secretary Ram Kishor Vyas Bhawan, Indra Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302004

¶10

3. RAJASTHAN STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Through Member Secretary, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302004

¶11

M/S KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.
Through Its Director,
2 nd Floor, MSK Complex,
120 Feet Ring Rd,
University Area, Ahmedabad
Gujarat-380015

¶12

...Respondent(s)

¶13

¶14

COUNSELS FOR APPLICANT(S):

¶15

Ms. Purvi Mathur, Advocate

¶16

COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Mr. Nishant Awana, Advocate for RSPCB Dr. Manish Singhvi, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sandeep Singh Bhagel, Advocate for Jaipur Development Authority

¶18

CORAM:

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶20

RESERVED ON: FEBRUARY 12, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON: APRIL 08, 2024

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶23

Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’ ) 80/2021(CZ) has been filed by Captain Satyender Kumar Singh, complaining about non-functioning and mismanagement in functioning of 30 Million Liter Per Day (hereinafter referred to as ‘MLD’ ) Sewage Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as ‘STP’ ) installed at Gajadharpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur, State of Rajasthan. Applicant further complained that untreated sewage effluent is being discharged on open land, causing damage to environment and creating health hazards to the people at large in violation of Section 24 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Water Act 1974’ ).

¶24

30 MLD STP was built by Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘JDA’ ) i.e., respondent 2, for the purpose of treating raw sewage using Activated Sludge Process (hereinafter referred to as ‘ASP’

¶25

¶26

with Programmable Logic Controllers i.e., PLC/Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition i.e., SCADA system. It was also intended by JDA to discharge treated sewage water in nearby low-lying areas.

¶27

The applicant said that STP however, is not properly functioning and untreated sewage is being discharged in the open land degrading environment.

¶28

It is also stated that JDA submitted an application dated 12.04.2010, seeking Consent to Establish (hereinafter referred to as ‘CTE’ ) from Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘RSPCB’ ) for establishing STP of 30 MLD capacity at village Gajadharpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. CTE was granted by order dated 07.09.2010. Later, JDA applied for Consent to Operate (hereinafter referred to as ‘CTO’ ), which was granted by RSPCB vide order dated 09.09.2013 (page 132 of paper book).

¶29

Irregular or non-functioning of STP in discharging untreated effluent on the open land was complained by applicant by submitting representations dated 05.03.2021 and 04.07.2021 to RSPCB, JDA and Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPCB’ ) but no appropriate action was taken by any of the said authorities. OA, therefore, was filed, seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to maintain the area free from any contamination or pollution as also encroachment causing damage to environment and to keep the area clean.

¶30

Tribunal’s Order dated 29.10.2021:

¶31

Tribunal considered complaint on 29.10.2021 and issued notices to the respondents directing them to file their response to OA. It also

¶32

¶33

constituted a Joint Committee comprising representatives of CPCB and RSPCB directing the said Joint Committee to submit factual and action taken Report within 6 weeks.

¶34

Joint Committee Report dated 03.01.2022 pursuant to Tribunal’s order dated 29.10.2021:

¶35

Pursuant to order dated 29.10.2021, Joint Committee submitted its Report dated 03.01.2022. Observations of Joint Committee contained in the Analysis Report of STP, River Bandi and ground water; observations made with respect to environmental compensation; action taken by JDA and RSPCB and also the recommendations contained in the report are as under:

¶36

“The committee visited the Activated Sludge Process based 30 MLD STP plant of Jaipur Development Authority established at village Gajadharpura, Kalwar, Jaipur and collected the samples from inlet, outlet, final discharge point and water flowing in river Bandi (the final discharge point of treated sewage). To ascertain the effect on the ground water due to the discharge of untreated sewage, the trend of the water quality obtained at identified monitoring station near River Bandi under National Water Quality Monitoring Program (NWMP) was considered.

¶37

1.0 About Sewage Treatment Plant:

¶38

The Activated Sludge Process based 30 MLD STP plant was established by Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) and commissioned in year 2013 to cater the area viz. North-West area of Jaipur city (Outer area of AjmerJaipur-Delhi 200 feet C-Zone by-pass, Neendad mod Sikar Road to Loha Mandi Area to Benad Road to Niwaru Road to Kalwar Road upto Gajadharpura). The Geographical location of the STP is 26.985341°, 75.617679°. The Consent to Operate (CTO) was granted on 26.6.2020 from RSPCB for 30 MLD STP & 500KVA DG Set is valid upto 29.2.2024 and 31.5.2025 respectively. Copy of the CTO is enclosed as Annexure-I.

¶39

Earlier the plant operation was looked after by M/s M S Khurana Engineering Ltd, Ahmedabad. Presently from October 2018, the O&M is being looked after by M/s Ansu Engineering . The STP comprised following unit operations viz. raw sewage sump, mechanical screening, grit chamber, parshall flume, primary clarifier

¶40

¶41

(02 nos x 2145 m³ , aeration tanks (2 nos. x 3865 m³ ) with diffused aerators (02 nos), secondary clarifiers (02 nos x 2557 m³ ), Sludge thickener (1 no. x 4380 m³ ), Sludge digester (2 nos. x 2550 m³ ), gas holders. Chlorine Contact Tank (CCT). The details of the unit operations are enclosed as Annexure-II.

¶42

The domestic wastewater treated through biological process and after chlorination is being discharged into the nonperennial river Bandi through 1 kms long closed conduit (RCCHUME) pipeline from the STP outlet to final discharge points near Government Primary School, Kalbeliyon ki Dhani, Kalwar. As informed by JDA officials, the treated waste water discharge in Bandi River by making/constructing earthen channel to provide treated water to farmers of the nearby villagers for farming.

¶43

2.0 Committee observations

¶44

2.1 Observation regarding STP:

¶45

i. On the day of visit (8.12.2021), the STP was operational with an average flow of 25MLD. The details of the month-wise average flow is as tabulated below:

¶46

S.No.	Month	Duration	Average inlet flow (in MLD)
1	_April, 2021 _	_27.03.2021-26.04.2021 _	23.42
2	_May, 2021 _	_27.04.2021-26.05.2021 _	_23.91 _
3	_June, 2021 _	_27.05.2021-26.06.2021 _	24.26
4	_July, 2021 _	_27.06.2021-26.07.2021 _	24.44
5	Aug, 2021	27.07.2021-26.08.2021	24.45
6	_Sept, 2021 _	_27.08.2021-26.09.2021 _	26.05
7	_Oct, 2021 _	_27.09.2021-26.10.2021 _	25.26
8	_Nov, 2021 _	_27.10.2021-26.11.2021 _	25.12
9	_Dec, 2021 _	_27.11.2021-07.12.2021 _	24.95

¶47

ii. White colour froth/foaming was observed at the point of discharge of treated wastewater.

¶48

iii. The log books of inlet flow, quality of raw sewage and treated sewage, pump operation and electricity consumption are recorded. The copy of the logbook is enclosed as Annexure-III. It is pertinent to mention that the electricity consumption during 27.11.2021 to 7.12.2021 varied from 1488KWH to 1790KWH; this reveals that few unit operations were not being operated during this period that may have resulted in poor treatment performance.

¶49

¶50

iv. Two by-pass lines exist as safety measure during shut down or unforeseen emergency. It is noteworthy that no metering arrangements have been provided at these by-pass lines . Thus, possibility of direct passing of raw sewage into disposal conduit can’t be ruled out.

¶51

v. STP has not provided online continuous effluent monitoring system (OCEMS) for measurement of quality of treated waste water. An administrative & financial approval order dated 22.11.2021 issued by JDA for supply, installation & maintenance of OCEMS for STP and NIT was issued on 3.12.2021 with last date of bid submission i.e. 27.12.2021. Copy of the administrative & financial order is enclosed as Annexure-IV.

¶52

vi. The methane bio-gas holder was found un-lifted, that reveals that no gas is being produced since long, in this regard unit needs to trace for any leakages in bio-gas holder pipeline. It was also observed that the thickened sludge after filter press is being dumping in open land inside the premises without recovering the bio-gas . The sludge drying bed/area is also not defined.

¶53

vii. The aeration tank, Sludge Volume Index (SVI) was observed as more than 250; that reveal the poor treatability and lift-over of the sludge to Secondary Settling Tank .

¶54

2.2 Observation regarding the discharge of wastewater:

¶55

i. The domestic wastewater treated through biological process and after chlorination is being discharged into the nonperennial river Bandi through 01 kms long closed conduit (RCC-HUME) pipeline from the STP outlet to final discharge points near Government Primary School, Kalbeliyon ki Dhani, Kalwar. As informed by JDA officials, the treated wastewater discharge in Bandi river by making/constructing earthen channel to provide treated water to farmers of the nearby villagers for farming.

¶56

ii. Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) has issued work orders for construction of temporary earthen channel for disposal of treated sewage water. The details are as tabulated below:

¶57

S.	Date of Work	Work order	Construction of	Amount of
No.	Order	issued to	Channel from	Order

¶58

¶59

1	27.7.2020	M/s. Shiv Samota Construction	STP to village Pachar	5,91,983/-
2	10.12.2020	Co.	Village Pachar to village Lalpura	2,78,807/-
3	22.01.2021		Village Lalpura to Downward for safe disposal	3,47,271/-
4	24.03.2021	M/s. Muskan Construction	Maintenance of existing channel and Construction of new channel at Bassi Naga village to downward for safe disposal	3,13,359/-

¶60

The copy of the work orders are enclosed as Annexure-V.

¶61

2.2.1 Pictorial (Satellite-image) proof of channelling and stagnation of the wastewater:

¶62

The satellite image (Feb, 2019), revealed that there was stagnation of the domestic wastewater near the discharge point and there is no channel to stop stagnation .

¶63

The satellite image (Feb 2021), revealed that a channel was constructed parallel to river length, however still the stagnation of wastewater is visible near the discharge points, this may be due to damaged channel at few points .

¶64

The satellite image (Oct, 2021), revealed that the channel is damaged near the discharging point and the wastewater started accumulating in about 5Ha area of the river bed.

¶65

The satellite images are as below:

¶66

Photographs omitted

¶67

The earthen channel of 15 kms (approx.) length from the discharge point as on October, 2021 is as below:

¶68

Photograph omitted

¶69

¶70

During visit on 8.12.2021, it was observed that the damaged drain has created a cess pool in about 5Ha area near the discharge point.

¶71

3.0 Analysis report

¶72

3.1. Analysis report of STP & river Bandi:

¶73

To assess the quality of treatment, samples were collected on 8.12.2021 from Inlet, Outlet, and final/terminal discharge point of STP. Sample was collected from bridge near Balaji Dham (Kalwar police station) to ascertain the quality of flowing water in river Bandi.

¶74

The analysis report is as tabulated below:

¶75

S. No	Sampling Location	GPS Location		(All a	Para re mg	meters /l exce	pt pH)
			pH	BOD	COD	TSS	Fecal Coliform (MPN/100ml)
1	Inlet of STP	26.984131°, _75.618578° _	7.20	280	673	594	>2400
2	Outlet of STP	26.985155°, _75.617329° _	7.71	24	92	46	*150*
3	Final / Terminal Point near Govt. Primary School at Kalbeliyon ki Dhani, _Kalwar _	26.987337°, 75.608677°	7.65	64	*192*	84	*240*
4	Bridge near Balaji Dham (Kalwar Police Station)	26.981679°, 75.603169°	7.28	*220*	*477*	*504*	*460*
Pres stan per dt. in 106	cribed dards (As NGT order 30.04.2019 O.A. 9/2018	-	5.5- 9.0	10	50	20	Desirable: 100 Permissible: 230

¶76

The analysis results revealed that the STP was not meeting the prescribed discharge standards for BOD, COD, TSS & Fecal Coliform. This is resulted due to improper sludge volume index in

¶77

¶78

aeration tank and the inadequate chlorine dosing.

¶79

The values of BOD, COD, TSS & Faecal Coliform was observed significantly high at the bridge near Balaji Dham (Kalwar Police Station) which is about 800mt distant from the final/terminal discharge point. The higher values may be due to discharge of untreated sewage and due to accumulation of partially treated domestic wastewater.

¶80

3.2 Analysis report of Ground water

¶81

To assess the ground water quality in the nearby area, sampling was done from tubewell near to Kalwar police station (GPS location 26.981779°, 75.603414°).

¶82

There is one tubewell near to STP which has already been identified under National Water Quality Program by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and half-yearly monitoring is carried out by Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB). The analysis date from 2019 to 2021 of this location was also studied for any significant change in the ground water quality due to discharge of STP treated wastewater. The analysis report is as tabulated below:

¶83

Parameter			Sampli	ng Locati	ons		Drinking water
	NWMP Borewel Jaipur (GPS Lo	location l near cation: 2	(Stati STP at 6.983714	on cod Gajadh ,75.608	e-4165) arpura, 426)	Tubewell near to Kalwar police station (GPS location 26.981854° 75.602437°)	Standard IS 10500:20 12
	24^th April, 2019	16^th Oct, 2019	11^th June, 2020	7^th Oct, 2020	8^th April, 2021	8^thDec, 2021
pH	7.71	7.6	7.73	8.24	7.64	7.84	6.5-8.5
Temperature	27	27	33	33	30	-	-
Total Alkalinity	196	180	188	200	176	424	600
C.O.D.	10.01	6.6	20.00	4.00	11.89	4.5	-
Calcium as Ca	35.2	38.4	41.6	46.4	54.4	16	200
Chloride	144	128	156	112	164	108	1000
Conductivity	1070	1040	900	1110	1170	1047	-

¶84

¶85

Fecal Coliform	4	<3	3	9	14	<3	-
Fluoride As F	0.98	0.96	0.82	0.4	0.68	0.565	1.5
Magnesium	24.4	26.352	34.16	44.896	47.824	16	100
Nitrate as N	2.1	2.2	1.34	2.28	3.04	2.9	-
Nitrite as N	0.0044	0.0052	0.0044	0.0004	0.0052	-	-
Boron	0.23	0.26	0.31	0.46	0.36	-	1.0
Phosphate	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.2	-	-
Potassium	2.5	3.1	6.9	2.2	7.7	2.2	-
Sodium	72	68	104	114	126	2	-
Sulphate	175	145	94	68	92	33	400
Total Coliform	4	7	7	14	28	04	-
TDS	832	758	738	818	878	760	2000
T. hardness	188	204	244	300	332	104	600
Iron as Fe	0.527	NT	0.033	0.175	NT	1.77	0.3
Cadmium	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	0.003
Copper	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	1.5
Lead	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	0.01
Zinc	0.146	0.022	0.197	0.051	0.298	0.530	15

¶86

Note: All parameter except pH, Temp (oC), Conductivity (µmho/cm), Coliform (MPN/100ml) are in mg/l.

¶87

The ground water quality at NWMP location and borewell near Kalwar Police Station showed that the values are well below the prescribed drinking water standards (IS 10500:2012). However, non-significant incremental in values of Total & Faecal coliform may be studied in light of any mixing of domestic wastewater in groundwater.

¶88

Copy of the analysis reports are enclosed as Annexure-VI.

¶89

4.0 Environmental compensation

¶90

The 30 MLD STP catering the need of North-West area of Jaipur city (Outer area of Ajmer-Jaipur-Delhi 200 feet C-Zone by-pass, Neendad mod Sikar Road to Loha Mandi Area to Benad Road to Niwaru Road to Kalwar Road upto Gajadharpura), currently operating on the

¶91

¶92

average flow of 25MLD.

¶93

The partially treated wastewater is being discharged in nonperennial River Bandi, that resulted in accumulation of wastewater majorly in the 5Ha near the near the discharge point. This resulted in higher values of BOD, COD, TSS and Faecal Coliform . The settled sludge in cess pool creates odorous environment in the local vicinity. Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) has awarded work order during July 2020 to March 2021 for the construction of earthen drain and its maintenance; this partially reduced the stagnation of the partially treated wastewater but due to damage in earthen drain the issue of stagnation again raised.

¶94

➢ The Environmental Compensation (EC) on the Authority for failing to achieve the discharge standards has 02 components:

¶95

i. Cost saved/benefits achieved by the concerned individual/authority by not having proper sewage management system; and

¶96

ii. Cost to the environment (environmental externality) due to untreated/partially treated waste/sewage because of insufficient capacity of sewage management/treatment facility.

¶97

Non-compliance period:

¶98

Earlier, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) has reported noncompliance w.r.t. discharge standards vide its inspection dated 27.7.2021. (Copy of the report is enclosed as Annexure-VII). The similar status of noncompliance was recorded by the NGT committee during its visit dated 8.12.2021 .

¶99

The committee is in the opinion to impose the environmental compensation (EC) on the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) for the period of non-compliance i.e 27.7.2021 to 8.12.2021 . (Note: This EC can be imposed for further non-compliance periods too)

¶100

Total days of non-compliance (27.7.2021 to 8.12.2021): 135 days

¶101

The Environmental Compensation assessment was based on the following formula:

¶102

Environmental Compensation (EC) = PI X N X R X S X LF Where,

¶103

¶104

PI= Pollution Index

¶105

N= Number of Days of non-compliance took place

¶106

R= A factor in Rupees for EC

¶107

S= Factor for scale of operation

¶108

LF= Location Factor

¶109

1	Pollution Index (PI)	80
	(STP was granted consent to Operate under Red category)
2	Number of Days of non-compliance (27.7.2021 to 8.12.2021)	135
3	A factor in Rupees for EC (in Rupees)	250
4	Factor for scale of operation	1.0
5	Location Factor (Jaipur city population is between 1 to <5 million)	1.25
	*EC (per day) = (80 X 250 X 1.0 X 1.25)*	*Rs. 25000/-*
	*EC for non-compliance period of 135 days*	*Rs.* *33,75,000/-*

¶110

5.0 Action taken

¶111

5.1 For upgradation of the STP by Jaipur Development Authority & RSPCB

¶112

As the present ASP technology based 30MLD STP designed to achieve BOD as 20mg/l, COD as 250mg/l, TSS as 50mg/l and pH 6-8; however, to achieve the new prescribed standards of pH 5.5-9, BOD 10mg/l, COD 50mg/l, TSS 20mg/l and faecal coliform 100MPN/100ml upgradation of the STP is needed . Following actions are taken by JDA:

¶113

i. Administration & financial approval of Rs. 56,32,440/- issued on 1.12.2021 for “Consultancy work for preparation of DPR for the upgradation of 30MLD STP”. Copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure-VIII.

¶114

¶115

ii. For uninterrupted operation of STP a 500KVA DG set was installed and CTO obtained from RSPCB with a validity upto 31.5.2025. Copy of the CTO is enclosed as Annexure-I.

¶116

iii. An administrative & financial approval order dated 22.11.2021 issued by JDA for supply, installation & maintenance of OCEMS for STP and NIT was issued on 3.12.2021 with last date of bid submission i.e. 27.12.2021. Copy of the administrative & financial order is enclosed as Annexure-IV.

¶117

iv. RSPCB has communicated the outcome of field visit (27.7.2021) vide letter dated 21.9.2021 and directed to comply the shortcoming w.r.t. upgradation of STP, OCEMS, reuse of the treated wastewater etc. Copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure-IX.

¶118

5.2 Action taken for channelling the treated wastewater by JDA

¶119

i. Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) has issued work orders for construction of temporary earthen channel for disposal of treated sewage water. The details are as tabulated below:

¶120

S. No.	Date of Work Order	Work order issued to	Construction of Channel from	Amount of Order
1	27.7.2020	M/s. Shiv Samota Construction	STP to village Pachar	5,91,983/-
2	10.12.2020	Co.	Village Pachar to village Lalpura	2,78,807/-
3	22.01.2021		Villag Lalpura to Downward for safe disposal	3,47,271/-
4	24.03.2021	M/s. Muskan Construction	Maintenance of existing channel and construction of new channel at Bassi Naga village to downward for safe disposal	3,13,359/-

¶121

The copy of the work orders are enclosed as Annexure-V.

¶122

¶123

ii. During the filed visit of the committee, JDA officials were instructed to immediately start the repair work of the damaged earthen drain to stop accumulation of the partially treated wastewater. JDA has started the repairing work and the field photographs (14.12.2021) are as below:

¶124

Photographs omitted

¶125

6.0 Recommendations

¶126

1. Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) to deposit the environmental compensation of Rs. 33,75,000/- (Thirty Three Lacs Seventy Five Thousand rupees) for reported non-compliance of 135 days. The imposition of EC with the rate of Rs. 25000/- may be applicable on daily basis till the compliance of prescribed norms achieved .

¶127

2. Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) shall submit its action plan of upgradation and reuse of treated sewage.

¶128

3. Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) shall repair the earthen channel to avoid any stagnancy.

¶129

4. Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) shall repair the biogas pipeline and start the operation of sludge digester with gainful utilization of bio-gas produced rather flaring as an option.

¶130

5. Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) shall update its logbooks of electricity consumption, biogas generation; install flow meter on bypass drain etc. Also maintain logbook of sludge generation and sale record of dried sludge. JDA also construct sludge drying bed (SDB) at identified site.

¶131

6. Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) shall ensure that during upgradation of STP on new technology, the existing STP plant also be operational till its commissioning.

¶132

7. Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) may be directed to expedite the upgradation of the STP to achieve the prescribed standards.

¶133

8. Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) and Ground Water Department may investigate the borewells falling within 100m of Bandi river’s bank (Both Sides) from the discharge point specifically for Faecal Coliform & Nitrate.”

¶134

¶135

Reply dated 24.12.2021 filed by M/s M.S. Khurana Engineering Ltd. (Respondent 4):

¶136

Reply dated 24.12.2021 was filed by M/s M.S. Khurana Engineering Ltd. (respondent 4) stating that JDA invited Bid for operation and maintenance of 30 MLD STP on 03.04.2019 but respondent 4 did not participate therein. Now the work has been awarded to a third party vide Work Order dated 06.09.2019 with whom respondent 4 has no concern and he has been wrongly impleaded and hence there is no violation on the part of respondent 4.

¶137

Report shows that the work of operation and maintenance of 30 MLD STP was awarded by Work Order dated 06.09.2019 to M/s Ansu Engineering 201, Namra Heights Chs Ltd., Plot no. 89, Sector-19, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Kharghar, Raighar, Maharashtra.

¶138

Tribunal’s Order dated 28.01.2022:

¶139

Report of Joint Committee was considered by Tribunal on 28.01.2022 and it was observed that serious irregularities, illegalities and non-compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SWM Rules 2016’ ), causing health hazards in the City like Jaipur are revealed by Report. Illegalities revealed by Report were summarized in para 3 of the order as under:

¶140

“i. Foaming of discharge of treated waste water,

¶141

ii. Unit in operation are not operated during the period mentioned in the report resulting into poor treatment performance,

¶142

iii. No metering arrangements have been provided at the by-pass line and thus the possibility of direct passing of raw sewage into disposal conduit,

¶143

iv. There is no Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System

¶144

¶145

(OCEMS),

¶146

v. Thickened sludge after filter press is being dumped in open land inside the premises without recovering the bio-gas. The sludge drying bed/area is also not defined,

¶147

vi. The aeration tank has poor treatability,

¶148

vii. Stagnation of domestic waste water and there are construction and obstruction in the channel parallel to river length,

¶149

viii. Channel is damaged near the discharge point,

¶150

ix. The treated water was not meeting the prescribed standard for BOD, COD, TSS and fecal coliform, and

¶151

x. There are increments in values of total and fecal coliform due to mixing of domestic waste water in ground water.”

¶152

Tribunal observed that JDA has failed to perform its duty sincerely, honestly and fairly and violated environmental laws, therefore, RSPCB had issued notice for assessment of environmental compensation but notice shows that it is actually defective as computation has not been done from the date of violation till continuation thereof. Tribunal directed JDA and RSPCB to submit action taken Report in the light of recommendations made by Joint Committee and enforce environmental laws in letter and spirit. Respondents were directed not to discharge untreated water into water bodies and if any violation is found, respondents must take necessary legal action, and compute environmental compensation from the date of violation of law till its continuance.

¶153

Reply dated 18.02.2022 filed by RSPCB (Respondent 3):

¶154

Reply was filed by RSPCB (respondent 3) wherein substantially the allegations made in OA are not disputed. It is stated that water is being discharged by JDA after partial treatment; STP was inspected on

¶155

¶156

09.04.2021 and 27.07.2021 and observations with regard to deficiencies were communicated to JDA vide letter dated 21.09.2021, copy whereof is filed as annexure-R/1 (page 262 of paper book).

¶157

Reply dated 08.04.2022 filed by JDA (Respondent 2):

¶158

Reply dated 08.04.2022 has been filed by JDA, stating that Work Order dated 10.12.2009 was issued in favour of M/s. M.S. Khurana Engineering Ltd. (respondent 4) for construction of 30 MLD STP on Conventional ASP. The contract cost was Rs.24,85,26,722/- which included Development cost of Rs.21,29,57,800/- plus Rs.3,55,68,922/towards 5 years’ maintenance cost. For the purpose of construction, CTE was granted by RSPCB on 07.09.2010. Construction of STP was completed on 26.10.2013. Consequently, CTO was granted by RSPCB on 09.09.2013 with validity period from 22.03.2013 to 29.02.2016. The contract of respondent 4 came to an end on 26.09.2019 whereafter the work of operation and maintenance of 30 MLD STP was awarded to M/s Ansu Engineering vide Work Order dated 06.09.2019 for a contracted amount of Rs.6,32,54,080/- for a period of 5 years.

¶159

M/s. Ansu Engineering started its work of operation and maintenance on 27.09.2019 and its period of contract would complete on 26.09.2024. In the meantime, RSPCB renewed CTO vide order dated 26.06.2020 with the validity period upto 29.02.2024. Since parameters of treated effluent have been amended and changed, 30 MLD STP requires upgradation for which Detailed Project Report (hereinafter referred to as ‘DPR’ ) to transform Conventional ASP to Frequency Batch Reactor was prepared and administrative and financial sanctions have been received for Rs.56,32,440/- on 01.12.2021. Work Order to Consultant has been

¶160

¶161

issued on 31.03.2022 for preparing DPR of upgradation of STP. Water treated by 30 MLD STP being discharged through channel towards Gram Durjaniya Baas Road, Sarangka Baas Road, Kanwara Baas Road, Khapadiya Baas Road, Bassi Naga road, Pachar Village Road, Ramlaka Baas, Manda Bhopa Baas and Paidaan ka Baas etc. is being used by the farmers in cultivation. Some industrial units are illegally discharging their trade effluent in the sewer line which is polluting the sewage network of JDA in as much as bacteria of STP are getting killed as a result whereof organic substance is not being digested. This chemical effluent is discharged almost once or twice every month resulting in exceeding COD and BOD parameter of raw sewage of STP beyond prescribed limits and also affecting the functioning of STP adversely. RSPCB has issued notices for establishment of Combined Effluent Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as ‘CETP’ ) for industrial units but no substantial progress has been shown in respect thereof. Additional District Collector Jaipur have written letters to RPSCB to take action against defaulting industrial units for discharging effluent into STP line. In the joint inspection of CPCB and RSPCB, channelized water was found damaged at 2 places and the same has been repaired/restored immediately. Further, some sensors of STP were not found functioning at the time of joint inspection but the same have been repaired subsequently. The proposal of imposition of environmental compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per day for 135 days is not justified since STP is running as per CTO issued by RSPCB and therefore, the said proposal be withdrawn.

¶162

Tribunal’s Order dated 25.04.2022:

¶163

OA was considered for final hearing on 25.04.2022 and disposed of on the said date. Tribunal found several lapses on the part of JDA in

¶164

¶165

operation and maintenance of STP and, therefore, JDA was directed to deposit Rs. 2 Crores towards interim compensation with District Magistrate, Jaipur which amount was directed to be utilized for restoration of damaged environment. Pending restoration directions were issued for not discharging untreated sewage or waste water in a water body or in open area in violation of environmental laws. Operative part of judgment dated 25.04.2022 contained in para 7 and 8 reads as under:

¶166

“7. We have considered the rival submission. The issue for consideration is the liability for violation of environmental norms on account of discharge of untreated sewage in the river as found by the joint Committee of CPCB and State PCB. The said report of the Committee has not been challenged. We accept the same in view of constitution of the Committee which has verified facts on the spot. The report shows deficiencies in functioning of STP resulting in discharge of untreated sewage in the river to the detriment of public health and environment, which is an offence under the law. The non - compliances include two Bypasses without being permitted in CTO, disposal of effluents into river Pali instead of there being atleast a ferti-irrigation plan, improper management of sludge, poor recovery of biogas, damaged conveyance system for carriage of effluents which is leading to inundation and further disposal of untreated effluents into final conduit (channel) showing BOD reaching to 220 mg/l. It appears that dosing of chlorine for disinfection of effluent with higher BOD level may result in formation of organo halogens like tri halo methane which are carcinogenic in nature. Instead of utilising effluents for industrial purpose, industries are reportedly allowed to discharge into sewers, irrespective of nature of effluents. The JDA acknowledges the violation by taking the plea that the STP will be upgraded in 2024. Its stand that there is discharge of effluents or other waste by industries and stone crushers may be looked into by the statutory regulators and action taken as per law but JDA has to be held accountable for continuing violations, apart from being required to remedy the violations at the earliest and not leisurely as proposed by it.

¶167

8. Accordingly, JDA as a responsible public body, must take emergency measures to ensure remedial action in a time bound manner. Till compliance, the compensation assessed has to be adequate to cover the cost of restitution and also deterrent and not on any formula which does not take into account these essential components. Let the joint Committee work out and recover such compensation within one month. The same be credited to a separate

¶168

¶169

account to be used for restoration, by preparing an action plan. Pending further action, we direct JDA to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 Crores towards interim compensation with the District Magistrate, Jaipur. The same be used for restoration by preparing an action plan by CPCB and State PCB in coordination with the JDA, to be executed through an appropriate agency which may be determined by CPCB, State PCB and District Magistrate, in coordination with the JDA. Pending restoration of the work, immediate interim measures may be taken to ensure that no untreated sewage or waste water is discharged in a water body or in open in violation of law. The restoration plan may also include measures to utilize the treated water for non-potable purposes, including for industrial purposes, gardening or railway washing. The immediate restoration measures may include preventing untreated sewage being let off near the school, as found earlier. Action plan should include maintenance of conveyance system for utilisation of treated water (compliant with norms), defining command area and users for irrigating the fields with well laid out protocols to prevent damage to the ground water, maintenance of sludge and biogas recovery, preventing formation of THMs ( backed up analytical data) and working out sewage utilisation plan for industrial and other bulk consumers in coordination with SPCB, CPCB, RIICO, Industries Department, and others. This plan should also be made applicable to other operating STPs in Jaipur and other parts in the State.

¶170

The Committee may file its report within four months with the Registrar General of this Tribunal by e-mail preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF. If any further direction is found necessary, the R.G. may place the matter before the Bench.”

¶171

First Compliance Report dated 22.09.2022 filed by Joint Committee vide Tribunal’s order dated 25.04.2022:

¶172

Joint Committee comprising Regional Officer, RSPCB, Jaipur (North) and Scientist- D, CPCB, Bhopal submitted first Compliance Report vide letter dated 22.09.2022 before this Tribunal, mentioning details of compliance as under:

¶173

“Compliance of the directions given under Para 8 is as below:

¶174

¶175

1. Pending further action, we direct JDA to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 Crores towards interim compensation with the District Magistrate, Jaipur.

¶176

In reference to the directions of Hon’ble NGT for deposition of Rs 2.0 Crore by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) to the District Collector’s Account as interim compensation, the JDA has not yet deposited the amount despite the communication made on various dates viz. 27.06.2022, 14.07.2022 and 12.08.2022 by Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) and directions were given on 14.9.2022 by the District Collector during the meeting.

¶177

Copy of the letters & Minute of Meeting are enclosed as Annexure-2.

¶178

The committee of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) in coordination with Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) has prepared the restoration plan after detailed discussion and field visit. The tentative estimated amount for restoring the environment covering majorly all aspects is Rs. 144.5 Lacs and same was considered as the Environmental Compensation. Further the cost of restoration may be revised based on the recommendations of the committee to achieve the desired outcome as per the restoration plan.

¶179

2. Restitution/restoration plan for 30MLD STP, Kalwar (Gajadharpura), Jaipur

¶180

The committee comprising of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) & Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) has finalized the restitution/restoration plan after having field survey and detailed discussion with concern officer of Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) and expert institute i.e. Malviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT).

¶181

Minutes of meetings are as follows:

¶182

i. Minutes of Meeting dated 19.5.2022

¶183

A virtual meeting was organized on 19.5.2022 with the representative of CPCB, RSPCB & Jaipur Development Authority. Dr. A B Gupta, Professor, Civil Engineering Department, MNIT, Jaipur was invited as an expert for technical guidance on the preparation of the restitution plan in compliance of the NGT Order dated 25.4.2022 in NGT OA 80 of

¶184

¶185

2021 (CZ).

¶186

Sh Vijay Sharma, Regional Officer, RSPCB welcomed all the invitees and presented the deficiency reported by the committee in their report on STP, Gajadharpura, Jaipur along with the NGT order. The detailed discussion was held on the following points:

¶187

i. Two Bypasses without being permitted in Consent to Operate (CTO)

¶188

ii. Disposal of effluents into the river

¶189

iii. Ferti-irrigation plan

¶190

iv. Improper management of sludge

¶191

v. Poor recovery of biogas

¶192

vi. Damaged conveyance system for carriage of effluents

¶193

vii. Formation of organo-halogens like tri halo methane (THMS) which are carcinogenic.

¶194

viii. Utilization of effluent for industrial purposes

¶195

ix. Cost of restitution to cover essential components viz. utilization of treated effluent, maintenance of conveyance system, command area and use for irrigation, biogas recovery, sludge management, formation of THMS & others

¶196

Official of JDA Sh Shiv Ratan Pareek, Executive Engineer informed that there are few incidences when industrial discharge was observed in open drains of the sewer. Dr. A B Gupta suggested first assessing in detail the polluting sources other than the STP discharge (non-complying to prescribed standards) so that appropriate pollution control measures may be adopted. Performance parameters should also be compared with the expected ranges available in the literature, e.g., energy consumption per unit BOD removed; the color of raw sewage (any hue other than brown or black can be suspected to be contaminated with dye pollution); COD/BOD ratio; Total and filtered BOD and COD, etc. In case some suspected ingress of dye-stuff waste is indicated, it has to be segregated; otherwise, any up- gradation work would have low effectivity.

¶197

¶198

It was further suggested that a unit-wise performance study of the STP should be carried out to identify & upgrade only low performing ones. The use of Microbial Biofilm Bed Reactor (MBBR) media in the first stage of the aeration tank may be tried as an experiment, which can improve its performance slightly and in case the value of treated sewage is indeed 24 mg/l, as informed during the meeting, perhaps the new standards of 10 mg/l may be achieved after the disinfection step. The performance of the Primary Settling Tank (PST) may be assessed for sludge production as it contains the major energy available through the digestion process.

¶199

Digesters should be assessed for biogas production and leakages, if any, should be plugged. Biogas production should be checked with the available literature for the VSS available in the sludge and arrangements for biogas compression & refilling may be explored in place of flaring the useful by-product. Aerobic digester to produce good quality manure may also be thought of as a good alternative to the existing anaerobic digester if it is difficult to maintain.

¶200

Further, it was suggested that the chlorination dosing needs to be optimized with the treatment level to minimize any chance of THMS generation. A hybrid system involving chlorine followed by UV can be designed to minimize the production of THMS. The chlorination step would also result in the reduction of BOD to some extent.

¶201

It was informed by a JDA representative that the presently available ASP based treatment technology doesn't provide treatment upto the level of BOD-10 mg/l, for which an upgradation of STP to SBR based technology, is under process .

¶202

Sh Sunil Kumar Meena, Sc-D, CPCB emphasized on the final required outcome of all the upgradation work i.e. restoration of the river path, for this he suggested to go with the expert guidance and preparing a plan with work required to be executed, required treatment cost, execution agency, etc. JDA officials also agreed with the opinion and guidance of the expert and committee members.

¶203

ii. Minutes of Meeting dated 23^rd & 24^th May 2022

¶204

¶205

Following committee members of CPCB & RSPCB and representative of JDA hold the physical meeting at STP, Gajadharpura on 23.5.2022 to have discussion on the restitution plan and having visit of the STP:

¶206

1. Shri Sunil Kumar Meena, Scientist-D, CPCB, Bhopal

¶207

2. Shri Vijay Sharma, Regional Officer, RSPCB, Jaipur (North)

¶208

3. Shri Shiv Ratan Pareek, EE, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur

¶209

4. Shri Nitin Goyal, JE, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur

¶210

It was informed by JDA officials that the leakages of the biogas reactor are plugged and same was verified on 23.5.2022 after lightening up the biogas flare. The bypass system was also verified and found that there are few incidences occur when colorful effluent enters into the plant same is bypassed through bypass drain. On an average about 2 Million Litre colorful effluent is bypassed monthly .

¶211

To assess the unit-wise performance of the plant, a grab sampling was conducted. The analysis result is as tabulated below:

¶212

Parameters	Inlet	O/l of Grit chamber	O/l of primary clarifier_ 1	O/l of primary clarifier_ 2	O/l of aeration tank_1	O/l of secondary clarifier_1	O/l of secondary clarifier_2	Fina l O/l	Termina l O/l at 1km distance from final _O/l _
TSS	548	548	548	548	548	548	548	548	548
% treatment	-	5	82	82	84	86	87	93	92
BOD	21 8	208	77	73	38	32	34	17	19
% treatment	-	5	65	67	83	85	84	92	91
COD	_623 _	615	255	239	171	_128 _	_124 _	93	97
% treatment	-	1	59	62	73	79	80	85	84

¶213

The analysis report revealed that the TSS & BOD removal are 93% and 92% respectively; however the COD removal is 85%. For achieving prescribed standards, it was suggested to engage an institute to carry out detailed composite sampling of the plant w.r.t. effluent treatment and energy consumption and biogas production potential. A field visit to terminal discharge point was also taken up and it was observed that the earlier constructed earthen channel was strengthened upto the length of about 800mtrs and no treated/untreated wastewater was found accumulated on the river bed. However, a small quantity of water was found stagnated at one place and on investigating, it was found that the concrete pipe

¶214

¶215

manufacturing unit was discharging its domestic and process effluent into the river. Committee had a short visit of the unit and directed unit proprietor to establish a septic tank & soak pit and apply for the consent as per the prescribed norms.

¶216

The committee had a walk on the dried river bed and observed that the upper surface was dried up but beneath that it was a marshy land. On further survey, it was informed by JDA official that there was marshy land observed from 0.5m depth to 3m depth in different- different patches and on estimation, it was assessed that about 41000m³ of the sludge is to be cleaned up which is creating odorous environment in the

¶217

surrounding.

¶218

To further, explore the options of MBBR media introduction and constructed wetland development, a meeting was held on 24.5.2022 at MNIT, Jaipur with Prof Urmila Brighu, Civil Engineering Department. For the pilot study of the MBBR media in ongoing treatment unit, it was suggested that this MBBR media may result in slight improvement in the treatment quality but it needs to be ensured that no high COD effluent enters the system else this will also not result in good treatment.

¶219

Before introducing MBBR media, it is better to check the illegal units/persons who discharge chemical effluent illegally and also test the inlet effluent on colorful discharge for characterizing the effluent and accordingly treatment can be suggested. Regarding the constructed wetland, it was suggested to construct a vertical wetland and pass about 5MLD treated effluent through this wetland which may further reduce the BOD level and dilute the other portion of the treated effluent. However, constructed wetland shall be requiring a large area (380m² with 2.5m depth for 1MLD) and constructing such wetland in river bed requires further clearance from concern authority. JDA official informed that an upgradation plan is already in process and DPR is about to complete. The SBR based treatment shall improve the BOD level upto 10mg/l and a separate high COD treatment unit is also under consideration. Till completion of that upgradation, it is asked to expert institute to assess the performance and suggest recommendation on further improving the treatment quality.

¶220

iii. Minutes of Meeting dated 9^th & 10^th June 2022

¶221

To further review the restitution plan and ferti-irigation plan, a meeting was held on 9^th June 2022 at RSPCB, Jaipur (North) office. The discussion was held with CPCB, RSPCB & JDA

¶222

¶223

official. The tentative cost estimation on various proposed activities under restitution plan were work out based on previous experiences and available rates of works. For analysing the treated wastewater for formation of Tri Halo Methane’s (THMs) M/s Consulting Engineers Groups Ltd, Jaipur was contacted. JDA was asked to tie-up with any agency for the THM analysis on prescribed analysis charges. The expenditure on survey, transport, analysis and meeting with farmers were also included. Sh Shiv Ratan Pareek, ExN, JDA officer informed that under STP upgradation plan from ASP to SBR technology all the other improvements viz, auto chlorinator, biogas generation, high COD effluent treatment, sludge drying bed etc. are included.

¶224

On 10^th June 2022 committee along with Sh Rishikesh Meena, AE & Sh Nitin Goyal, JE of JDA, Jaipur visited SKN Agriculture University, Jobner (Rajasthan) and had a detailed discussion with Dr (Prof) Lala Ram Yadav, Head, Dept of Agronomy on possibility of treated sewage wastewater in agriculture area and command area. It was informed by Dr Yadav that river Bandi was found flowing way back in year 1981 then after it became non- perennial. The treated wastewater is being used by many farmers of Pachar and nearby villages. The use of water majorly depends on pH, Electrical conductivity, SAR values. The water can be assessed for these and other prescribed parameters under EPA, 1986 and accordingly a ferti-irrigation plan can be prepared. JDA was asked to have a MoU with the university and prepare a plan as per the CPCB guideline.

¶225

Based on the discussion held during 03 meetings (19^th May, 23^rd & 24^th May and 9^th & 10^th June, 2022), the restitution plan with tentative cost estimation and probable outcome was prepared & finalized after detailed discussion with concern JDA officers. The execution of the work shall starts from 25^th June 2022 positively. The copy of the restoration plan is enclosed as Annexure-3.

¶226

The timelines and number of activities is as tabulated below:

¶227

*Timeline*	*Number* *activities*	of
_Immediate Action required (within 1month) _	08
Short term(1-3 months)	06
Mid Term (4-12 months)	02
Long term (1-2 years)	_01 _
Regular activity	_04 _

¶228

¶229

3. Execution agency

¶230

In compliance of the Hon’ble NGT direction the CPCB, State PCB and District Magistrate, Jaipur in coordination with the JDA has finalized the appropriate agency for executing the proposed works as per the restoration plan.

¶231

The STP is managed by Jaipur Development Agency, accordingly it was decided that JDA itself shall execute the planned work through registered contractor . Copy of the MoM is enclosed as Annexure-4.

¶232

The progress on the execution of the work shall be overseen by the committee as constituted vide the Hon’ble NGT order.

¶233

4. Compliance status

¶234

The Jaipur Development Authority was asked to submit monthly progress report on the execution of the plan to nodal agency i.e. RSPCB. Further, the committee will have visit of the site and based on the progress on field shall submit quarterly report to the Hon’ble Tribunal.

¶235

The First progress report on the execution of the activities as per the plan since June 2022 is enclosed Annexure-5.”

¶236

M.A. No. 03/2022:

¶237

Above report dated 22.09.2022 was registered in this Tribunal as M.A. No. 03/2022.

¶238

Civil Appeal No. 7018/2022, Jaipur Development Authority vs. State of Rajasthan & Others:

¶239

JDA, State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Forest and RSPCB challenged Tribunal’s judgment dated 25.04.2022 before Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7018/2022, Jaipur Development Authority vs. State of Rajasthan & Others. Appeal was filed on 16.08.2022 but came up for consideration before Supreme Court on 26.09.2022 . Supreme Court passed order dated 26.09.2022 staying Tribunal’s order

¶240

¶241

dated 25.04.2022 subject to payment of Rs.33,75,000/- towards environmental compensation by appellants. Supreme Court’s order dated 26.09.2022 reads as under:

¶242

“ Delay condoned.

¶243

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in terms of the formula evolved by the Committee regarding environmental compensation of which a reference has been made at page 8 of the impugned order, the Committee arrived at a conclusion that there was a non-compliance for the period of 135 days still taking recourse to the report, a random view has been expressed by the Tribunal directing the environmental compensation of Rs.2 crores.

¶244

Counsel further submits that even the liability of environmental compensation on the appellant is to be examined by this Court.

¶245

Issue notice, returnable on 14.11.2022.

¶246

In the meanwhile, operation and effect of order of the Tribunal dated 25.04.2022 shall remain stayed provided the appellant deposits environmental compensation of Rs.33,75,000/- as assessed by the Committee within a period of four weeks.”

¶247

Supreme Court’s order dated 10.02.2023:

¶248

Civil Appeal No. 7018/2022 (supra) was taken up by Supreme Court on 10.02.2023 and after noticing that environmental compensation of Rs.33,75,000/- was deposited by appellants and also that Committee has furnished Report before Tribunal, Supreme Court directed this Tribunal to proceed with the matter on the basis of Committee’s Report including recommendations and decide it in accordance with law but so far as compensation which was deposited, Supreme Court said that the same shall abide by further orders passed by Tribunal. Interim order dated 26.09.2022 was modified accordingly. Supreme Court’s order dated 10.02.2023 reads as under:

¶249

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties and consider

¶250

¶251

appropriate to modify our interim order dated 26.09.2022.

¶252

Since the environmental compensation of Rs. 33,75,000/- as dicated by the Tribunal referred to on page 8, paragraph no. 4.0 has been deposited by the appellant and the Committee has furnished its report before the Tribunal, let the Tribunal may proceed with the matter on the basis of Committee’s report including recommendations and decide in accordance with law and so far as the compensation which has been deposited will abide by further orders passed by the Tribunal.

¶253

The interim order passed by this Court on 26.09.2022 is modified accordingly.

¶254

Let the Tribunal may proceed with the matter.

¶255

List after eight weeks.”

¶256

Action Taken Report dated 24.03.2023 filed by RSPCB:

¶257

An Action Taken Report dated 24.03.2023 was filed by RSPCB,

¶258

giving details of compliance in para 6 as under:

¶259

“6. That in compliance of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal, the action taken are as under:

¶260

A) As informed by the JDA, Administrative and Financial Sanction of Rs. 106.8 Crore has been accorded for upgradation of the STP including 10 years O&M.

¶261

B) Kachcha drain/channel has been prepared by the JDA to channelize the treated sewage water for utilizing the same for irrigation purposes by the nearby farmers. The Bandi is a non- perinial river.

¶262

C) The State Board has collected samples of treated waste water on 09.01.2023 and 15.02.2023. As per the waste water analysis reports, the results do not conform the prescribed limits. The copy of the sample analysis reports is annexed herewith and marked as AnnexureR/5. Further, sample of treated waste water was collected from outlet of the STP on date 25.02.2023 and tested for FC. According to the result Faecal Coliform (MPN Technique)/100 ml is 280 (Copy of the A/R enclosed) against the prescribed limit of 230. The copy of the sample analysis reports is annexed herewith

¶263

¶264

and marked as Annexure-R/6. Therefore, the State Board has issued show cause notice dated 17.03.2023 . The copy of the show cause notice dated 17.03.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/7.

¶265

D) In order to channelize the treated sewage, Water Resource Department has sanctioned Rs. 631 Lacs for construction of earthen channel in masonry and work has been started on site which is scheduled to complete by June, 2024. Bed of the channel shall be earthen/Kachcha which will increase water table of the surrounding areas and irrigation may be possible in approx. 1000 Ha. Area, Length of the channel approx. 1650 meters and width approx. 6 meters.

¶266

E) A meeting convened under the chairmanship of Director Engineering-III, JDA on 09.03.2023. The copy of the minutes of meeting dated 09.03.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/8.

¶267

F) The present status of compliance by the State Board with respect to restitution plan provided by the joint committee is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/9.

¶268

G) The State Board vide letters dated 17.03.2023 informed the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing, Govt. of Rajasthan and Secretary, Local Self Government, Government of Rajasthan, for preparation of sewage utilization plan for industrial and other bulk consumers and to ensure compliance of Hon'ble Tribunal order dated 25.04.2022. The copy of letters dated 17.03.2023 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/10 (Coll.).

¶269

In view of above, it is submitted that the action taken report may kindly be taken on record.”

¶270

Factual Compliance Report dated 06.04.2023 filed by JDA:

¶271

Further compliance report was filed by JDA vide letter dated 06.04.2023. The Status Report given in the form of chart by JDA through Executive Engineer (PHE-II) reads as under:

¶272

“ The status report in the compliance of Hon’ble NGT dated 15.12.2022

¶273

¶274

are as under:

¶275

S. *No.*	*Direction of Hon’ble* *NGT* as *per* *order* *dated 15.12.2022*	*Status Report*
1.	Compliance report of Restitution Plan as on June, 2022 yet to be executed by JDA.	The current status report on Restitution Plan is enclosed as Annexure-A. The JDA has already been taken action on this and mostly activities has been completed i.e. removing of sludge deposited in river bed, installation of flow meter & CCTV at Inlet Bypass point and *for* up *gradation of STP, A&F has been* *sanctioned by JDA for Rs.* *108.60 Crore (for up-gradation* *of existing STP including 10-* *year O & M).*In the up-gradation of STP, the provision for utilization of Bio Gas as per direction of Hon’ble NGT are included and shall be utilized in Power Generation unit.
2.	Unchecked violation of norms are continuing for which action has to be taken by the JDA as well as State PCB in terms of directions already issued. Due to deficiencies in STP, non-complying effluents are being discharged exceeding level of BOD and chlorination which affect the river water quality and the crops.	It is submitted that existing 30 MLD STP is constructed as per earlier issued CTE (07.09.2021) & CTO (09.09.2013). Copy enclosed at Annexure-B. The norms of treated water has been revised by Hon’ble NGT. To achieve these revised parameters, *Up-gradation* of *STP* is *essential and action has been* *initiated by JDA.* An A&F has been sanctioned by JDA for Rs. 108.60 Crore for up- gradation including 10 year O&M of STP (copy enclosed as Annexure- C). In the up-gradation of STP, the

¶276

¶277

		provision for utilization of Bio Gas as per direction of Hon’ble NGT are included and shall be utilized in Power Generation unit. The water sample of both side of disposal channel has already been tested by RSPCB and reports are enclosed at Annexure-D which are found satisfactory.
3.	Presently, on an average 24 MLD sewage is being treated against installed capacity of 30 MLD. Gap in sewage generation and the treatment (present capacity being 30 MLD) needs to be ascertained.	In the matter it is submitted that at present 24 to 26 MLD sewerage is reaching at plant against capacity of 30 MLD. There is Gap in sewerage generation and the treatment due to water scarcity. The Bisalpur water pipe line are being laid by PHED (Public Health Engineering Department) and left out area of sewer line in the catchment of STP are being laid as per water availability & as per requirement in area.
4.	Results of BOD being below 20 MLD need to be verified. No results of FC are given.	*The sample of treated water of* *STP tested regularly by RSPCB.* To *achieve* *the* *latest* *parameters,* *up-gradation* of *STP* is *essential.* In *this* *regards, an A&F of Rs.108.60* *Crore has been sanctioned by* *JDA* *for* *up-gradation* of *existing 30 MLD STP including* *10 years O&M (Annexure-C).* *As mentioned above that, in the* *up-gradation* of *STP,* *the* *provision for utilization of Bio* *Gas as per direction of Hon’ble* *NGT are included and shall be* *utilized in Power Generation*

¶278

¶279

		*unit.* *The sample has been collected* *by RSPCB for FC testing and* *results are found satisfactory* as *per* *O&M* *contract* *and* *enclosed at Annexure-F.* *In additional to this, it is also* *submitted* *and* *already* *informed to Hon’ble NGT that* *once or twice time in a month,* *chemical black/red water of* *any legal/illegal industries or* *stone cutting machine reaches* *at STP. The STP is constructed* *to treat the domestic sewage* *and this chemical sewage when* *enter in the plant which have* *high BOD & COD, it kills the* *healthy bacteria growth. Due to* *this, treatment process of STP* *not works properly.*
5.	Priority has to be ensure utilization of treated sewage and lay down proper ferti-irrigation plan. Inter-departmental meeting between JDA, RICOH, deptt. of industries, agriculture and State PCB under the chairmanship of Additional Chief Secretary, Urban to finalize execution action plan on utilization of treated sewage is necessary, which may be held within one month.	In the matter it is submitted that treated sewage water of Gajaharpura STP is being disposed through an earthen channel. This earthen channel is passing through various villages nearby of Durjaniya Baas road, Sarangka Baas road, Kanwarka Baas road, Khapadiya Baas road, Bassi Naga road, Pachar village road, Ramlaka Baas, Manda Bhopa Baas and Paidaanka Baas etc to provide treated sewage water to farmers for reuse purpose and local farmers are using treated

¶280

¶281

sewage water for farming purpose. It is also submitted that this earthen channel is being constructed in masonry by Water Resource Department. In this regard, an A&F of Rs.631.00 Lacs has been sanctioned on dated 03.09.2022 and work has been issued to M/s Gauri Construction for amounting to Rs.532.00 lacs. The stipulated dated of commencement & completion of work is 18.12.2022 & 09.06.2024. The work has been started at site and under progress. In the proposed work canal shall be constructed in Masonry in the length of 1650 meter and shall be constricted earthen/Kacchi in approx. 6.0 meter in width. In the alignment of canal, 16 nos. Pulia shall be constructed to maintain smooth traffic.
A meeting was held in JDA on dated 09.03.2023 to discuss the issues between JDA, RSPCB, WRD and DIC (District Industries Centers). The Minutes of Meeting is enclosed at Annexure-F.
To discuss the issues at the level of Additional Chief Secretary, case
has been moved and shall be organized soon.

¶282

¶283

Compliance Report/Affidavit dated 06.07.2023 showing compliance as on 26.06.2023:

¶284

JDA also filed its Compliance Report as on 26.06.2023 vide affidavit dated 06.07.2023. The document was annexed as AR-1 which is in the form of a chart showing compliance on the part of JDA during earlier period as also on 26.06.2023. We find it appropriate to reproduce the chart as under:

¶285

“Compliance of Restitution Plan in NGT O.A. 80 of 2021 (CZ) w.r.t. STP, River Bandi, Treated water management

¶286

As on 26.06.2023

¶287

S. No *Imm*	*Action* *required* *(Decided by* *Joint* *Committee)* *ediate Action*	*Respons* *ible* *Agency* *required (w*	*Execution* *Agency* *ithin 1 m*	*Probable* *outcome* *(Decided* by *Joint* *Committee)* *onth)*	*Compliance* by *Joint* *Committee* *which* is *already* *submitted* *(As* *earlier* *21.09.2022)*	*Modified* *Updated* *Compliance* *by JDA (As* on *26.06.2023)*	*Compli* *period*	*ance*
1	Stopping the STP Bypass and Installation of digital Flow meters on the bypass line.	JDA	JDA	No discharge of untreated / partially treated effluent other than the rainwater	In the matter it is submitted that Flow Meter & CC TV Camera on Inlet point will be installed very soon.	In the matter it is submitted that Flow Meter & CCTV at Bypass point of STP at Inlet has already been installed (Annexure- 19)	Complia done	nce
2	Identification of the units operating in non- industrial areas/indust rial areas and discharging wastewater reaching this STP.	JDA (non- industrial area) and RSPCB in associati on with JDA (industri al area)	JDA (non- industri al area) RSPCB (industri al area)	No industrial effluent will meet the sewer, which will result in an improvem ent in treatment	In this regard, JDA is trying to identify the local units at own level through STP O&M agency. In this regard, when chemical water	In this regard, JDA is trying to identify the local units at own level through STP O&M agency. In this regard, when chemical	Action taken during of month which given joint Commi	time one is by ttee.

¶288

¶289

					reaches at STP then it’s trying to trap through open the sewer manhole at particular interval so that a reach may be fixed/identifi ed. Senior Regional Manager of RIICO was contacted by RSPCB to explore the possibility of discharge of colour effluent to the STP and no units found operating in the industrial area that may discharge colored effluent in sewer drain.	water reaches at STP then it’s trying to trap through open the sewer manhole at particular interval so that a reach may be fixed/identif ied. In the matter, it is also submitted that illegal activities of any industry or non- industry to be identified by the RSPCB. In this regard, letter has been again wrote to RSPCB & other concerning department vide no. 569 dated 15.12.2022 (copy enclosed at Annexure-2)
3	Identification of the units operate on the left bank of river Bandi for their sewer discharge and ensure a treatment in STP or provide septic tank	RSPCB & JDA	JDA, RSPCB & _respective _ unit	No direct discharge of untreated sewer in river Bandi	M/s Natani polymers unit has been identified. A show cause notice for intended direction for closure under Air and Water act has been issued on

¶290

¶291

4	Unit-wise Performance Assessment (composit sampling) of the STP w.r.t. Quality of treatment, Energy consumption, optimized Chlorine dosing biogas generation potential etc.	RSPCB to provide facility on chargea ble basis and expense s to be borne by JDA.	JDA with some educati onal institute	Help in Developing an effective improvement plan	26.07.2022. Malviya Institute of Technology (MNIT) was requested for unit wise performance assessment. In this regards, a field visit was made with MNIT Professors on dated 09.09.2022 (Photograph are enclosed at Annexure- I) and they suggest some suggestion for which few test shall be conducted and required amount of consultancy shall be deposited by JDA to MNIT after quotation received from MNIT. In addition to this, for composite sampling (paid), JDA has already deposited requisite amount to RSPCB vide letter no. D- 396 dated 26.08.2022 (Copy Enclosed at Annexure-XII	In the matter it is submitted that unit wise performance (composite sampling) of the STP has already been done through RSPCB and reports are enclosed at Annexure-1. The reports are found satisfactory. It is also submitted that energy consumption optimized chlorine dosing biogas generation potential has been done though JDA consultant (Annexure- 7), which appointed for upgradation of 30 MLD STP Gajadharpura (work order copy enclosed at Annexure-3).	Compliance made by RSPCB and JDA within time regarding unit wise performance.

¶292

¶293

5	Construction of Sludge drying/stora ge area	JDA	JDA	Proper managem ent of sludge	A & B). In the matter it is submitted that, as per discussion during the joint visit, sludge is being collected in Poly Bags as Temporary arrangement (Photographs Enclosed at Annexure-II). Till up- gradation work completed.	In the matter it is submitted that, as per discussion during the joint visit, sludge is being collected in Poly Bags as Temporary arrangement (Photograph s Enclosed at Annexure- 4). Till up- gradation work completed.	The joint committee had given one month time whereas we complied with the orders within 10 days.
6	Detection & Repairing of leakages of biogas holder tank	JDA	JDA	Production of biogas	The leakage of Bio gas pipe line was found through soap water method which has been rectified. It was rectified by replacing of damaged gaskets and repairing of valve. It is also submitted that The Gas flair unit is also in function (Photographs are enclosed at Annexure- III). At present, there is no measuring unit installed in the	It has already informed in earlier compliance that, the leakage of Bio gas pipe line was found through soap water method which has been already rectified and it has also shown to RSPCB officials. It was rectified by replacing of damaged gaskets and repairing of value. It is also submitted that The Gas flair unit is also in	Compliance done and as per guidelines of Hon’ble NGT, produced has shall be utilized in Power Generation in proposed Up- gradation of STP which tender is in process and technical bid already opened on dated 19.05.2023 which is under consideration for approval.

¶294

¶295

					existing system for measurement.	function (Photographs are enclosed at Anneuxre- 5). At present, there is no measuring unit installed in the existing system for measurement. It is also submitted that as per guidelines of Hon’ble NGT, produced has shall be utilized in Power Generation in proposed Up- gradation of STP which technical bid already opened on dated 19.05.2023 which is under consideration for approval.
7	Repair the flow meters, the sensor installed	JDA	JDA	Effective data logging	Work has been completed and all sensors are in working condition at present. Photos of working sensor and flow meters are enclosed as Annexure- IV.	Work has been completed and all sensors are in working condition at present. Photos of working sensor and flow meters are enclosed as Annexure-6.	Compliance done.

¶296

¶297

8 *Sho*	Cleaning of sludge from the river bed *rt term (1-3 mo*	JDA *nths)*	JDA	Cleaning of river bed and reduction in odourous environment	In this regard to take the initial action Rs. 5.00 Lakh Annexure-V work order has been issued (Annexure- IVA) and as far as concerned removal of the sludge, there is no site to dispose the same due to opposition of peoples. At present there is no foul smell on the sludge sports.	In the matter, it is submitted that sludge from river bed has been removed (Photographs are enclosed at Annexure- 8. In addition to this, it is also submitted that a channel has also sanctioned from STP outlet point to Kalakh Dam and being constructed by Water Resource Department in river bed (A&F enclosed at Annexure-9). The work has been started at site (Photos enclosed at Annexure- 10) & under progress. At present there is no foul smell.	Compliance made after drying of sludge because the wetted sludge was not possible to remove.
1	Procure and installation of OCEMS with server connectivity with RSPCB,	JDA	JDA	Continuous data dissemin ation	OCEMS has installed at STP which is under trial. RSPCB has also requested to	OCEMS at STP site has been installed with RSPCB server on	Compliance done with in time period.

¶298

¶299

CPCB				provide necessary direction to link the data with online server vide letter no. D- 382 dated 03.08.2022. The RSPCB has replied by Email on 22.08.2022 to deposit fee for configuration with the Online Monitoring Portal of the State Board as per Office order dated 10.09.2021 and RSPCB also directed to JDA for submit a filled Pre Deployment Checklist for the applicable parameters. Reply to RSPCB with requisite fees shall be deposited soon with filled pre Deployment Checklist as desire. Detail of Purchase order and installation report is enclose as Annexure-VI.	26.12.2022.
2 Introduction of treatment improvising	JDA	JDA	Improved treatment	Work has been completed	Work has already been completed	Compliance done before

¶300

¶301

	strategy viz. sludge cleaning of PST, SST & other tanks			quality	and detail is enclosed as Annexure-VII with Photographs.	and detail is enclosed as Annexure-11 with Photographs .	time, the joint committee had given one-to- three- month time whereas we complied with the orders within one month.
3	Repair & optimize the chlorine dosing	JDA	JDA	Optimized chlorine dosing	Chlorine dosing is regularly being done by JDA. Detail of Chlorine and photographs of CCT and Chlorine tanks are enclosed at Annexure- VIII.	Chlorine dosing is regularly being done by JDA. Details of Chlorine with logbook photocopy (Enclosed at Annexure 12A to 12D) and photograph of CCT and Chlorine tanks are enclosed at Annexure - 12.	It is being already followed even before the orders of joint committee.
4	Survey of the Command area & users (stone crusher, township horticulture, irrigation, etc.) of the treated wastewater and quantification of reuse potential	JDA	JDA & RSPCB along with Municip al Body	Record on the command area and users	At present treated water of STP is being utilized by local farmers for farming purpose. Further action will be insure as per consultancy report received.	At present treated water of STP is being utilized by local farmers for farming purpose. It is also submitted that Agriculture University, Jobner was requested to check the quality of treated	Compliance done during time which is given by joint Committee

¶302

¶303

						water of STP (Enclosed at Annexure- 13) so that university professor can convinces the farmers to use water in farming at large scale.
5	Plan for supplying the treated wastewater to the identified users, IEC activities & revenue model	JDA	JDA	Plan for utilization of the wastewat er along with Agricultur al University	At present there is no township is located nearby.	At present there is no township is located nearby but still selling plan of treated water is enclosed in proposed Up- gradation of STP and imposed a clause to bidders in tender for revenue generation by selling of treated water and sludge which technical bid already opened on dated 19.05.2023 which is under consideration for approval.	At present treated water of STP is being disposed through a earthen channel which is being used by local farmers for farming purpose. In addition to this in new up- gradation tender, it is also included to provide treated water and manure to industries and local farmers by laying of pipe line.
6	Survey & analysis of water quality of the open well/Dugwell on both	JDA & RSPCB	RSPCB in coordin ation with	The analysis Report shall provide insight	Survey of the water quality of the open well/Dugwell on both banks of the	In the matter, it is submitted that Survey of the water quality of the	Compliance made by RSPCB with in time.

¶304

¶305

*Mid*	banks of the river upto 15 Kms distance From the discharge point *Term (4-12mon*	*ths)*	JDA.	into the present water quality and help in strategizing the restoration plan accordingly.	river up to 15 kms distance has been collected on 25/07/2022 by RSPCB Officials.	open well/Dig well on both banks of the river up to 15 kms distance has already been collected by RSPCB officials on dated 25/07/2022 by RSPCB Officials (Reports enclosed at Annexure- 18)
1	Construction & strengthening of conveyance from discharge point to final point upto approx.15 km distance	JDA	JDA & identified agency	No accumulati on of partially treated wastewater & reduced odor issue.	In this regard, for regular cleaning of earthen channel, work order has been issued. This is regular process and being maintained by JDA. Work order copy and GPS location Photographs are being enclosed at Annexure-IX.	In this regard, for regular cleaning of earthen channel, work order has already been issued. This is regular process and being maintained by JDA (Annexure- 17). In addition to this, it is also submitted that a channel has also been sanctioned from STP outlet point to Kalakh Dam and being constructed by Water	It is being already followed even before the orders of joint committee.

¶306

¶307

						Resource Department in river bed (A&F enclosed at Annexure-9). The work has been started at site & under progress. At present there is no foul smell.
2 *Lon*	Arrangement of adequate tanker filling station for treated wastewater for utilization *g term (1-2 yea*	JDA *rs)*	JDA	The utilization of treated waste water will Increase with revenue generation	In the matter it is submitted that Tanker Filling Point has been developed (Annexure-X) at Site and Motor for Pumping from Treated Water Tank to Main Gate is being ordered. Tanker Filling Point shall be start at Main Gate when pump will receive at site (Approx. within 30 days Period).	In the matter, it is submitted that Tanker Filling Point has been developed (Annexure- 14) at Site. In addition to this, new OHSR shall also be constructed during the Up- gradation of STP for the filling of tankers by hydrant.	The Compliance has been made with in time. In addition to this, new OHSR shall also be constructe d during the Up- gradation of STP for the filling of tankers by hydrant.
1	Upgradation of STP to SBR based technology	JDA	JDA	Achieve prescribed discharge standards	The consultancy firm has been appointed by JDA to prepare Detail Project Report (DPR). Work order copy is being enclosed at	The consultancy firm been appointed by JDA to prepare Detail Project Report (DPR). Work order copy is being enclosed at	Compliance done during time which is given by joint committee.

¶308

¶309

Annexure-XI.	Annexure-3.
Although,	The
firm has
submitted	consultant
Draft report	has
as per NGT	submitted
norms, which	DPR and
is under	accordingly
	A&F
consideration.	Sanction of
	Rs. 108.60
	Crore has
	been issued
	for Up-
	gradation of
	STP from
	ASP to SBR
	Technology
	including 10
	year O&M
	(Annexure-
	20).
	The Administrative
	sanction of
	total
	amounting to
	Rs. 249.14
	Crore has
	been issued
	for
	construction
	of New 30
	MDL STP to
	enhance the
	capacity of
	existing STP &
	Upgradation
	of STP (Rs.
	108.60 crore)
	including 10
	year O&M. It
	is also
	submitted
	that*tender is*
	in *process*
	*and*
	*technical bid*
	*has already*
	*been opened*
	on *dated*
	*19.05.2023*
	*which* is

¶310

¶311

*Reg*	*ular activity*					*under* *consideratio* n *for* *approval.In compliance of* guidelines of Hon’ble NGT The work completion period of up- gradation of STP is given in tender documents is 15 months so up gradation work is expected to be completed at the end of 2024.
1	Monthly monitoring of STP treatment quality	RSPCB	RSPCB	Provide data for devising a quality improvem ent plan	For sampling, JDA has already deposited requisite amount of Rs. 30,000.00 to RSPCB vide letter no. D- 396 dated 26.08.2022 (Copy Enclosed at Annexure-XII A & B).	RSPCB has collected sample regularly and latest report issued by RSPCB enclosed at annexure e- 15 which shows that *STP* is *working as* *per earlier* *issued* *parameters* *for STP. To* *achieve* *new* *parameters,* *upgradation* of *STP* *tender is in* *process*and technical bid already opened on dated 19.05.2023 which is	It is being already followed even before the orders of joint committee.

¶312

¶313

						under consideration for approval. In compliance of guidelines of Hon’ble NGT the work completion period of upgradation of STP is given in tender documents is 15 months so up *gradation* *work* is *expected to* *be complete* *at the end* *of 2024.*
2	Monitoring of THMs	RSPCB	Sampling by RSPCB/ third party and expenses to be borne by JDA	Provide data for optimizing the quality of treatment	RSPCB lab does not have facility for monitoring THMs. Therefore JDA to arrange for testing of THMs from third party.	In the matter it is submitted that THMs testing has been conducted by JDA through IR- Class Testing Laboratory (known as CEG) and reports found satisfied (enclosed at annexure- 16)	Compliance made by JDA through third party for testing of THM’s with in time.
3	Maintenance of the conveyance drain for treated wastewater	JDA	JDA & identified agency	No accumula tion of the partially treated waste water &	In this regard, for regular cleaning of earthen channel, work order	In this regard, for regular cleaning earthen channel, work order	It is being already regularly monitoring process which is already

¶314

¶315

				no foul smell	has been issued. This is regular process and being maintained by JDA. Work order and GPS Photographs are enclosed at Annexure- IX.	has been issued. This is regular process and being maintained by JDA (annexure- 17). In addition to this, it is also submitted that a channel has also sanctioned from STP outlet point to Kalakh Dam and being constructed by Water Resource Department in river bed (A&F enclosed at annexure-9). The work has been started at site & under progress. At present there is no foul smell.	followed by JDA.
4.	Proper management of the logbooks on details Of effluent quantity, chemical use, biogas generation, electricity consumption, etc.	JDA	JDA & identified agency	Correct information shall guide in preparing the effective improvem ent plan	Record is being maintained by JDA. As desire, 3 months data is being attached at Annexure- XIII (A&B).	Record of logbook i.e. Monthly test reports of pH, COD, BOD, TSS, Operation of Motors, pump, blowers, Electric consumption, chemical dosing report etc. are	It is being already regularly monitoring process which is already followed by JDA.

¶316

¶317

being maintained
by JDA.

¶318

Civil Appeal No. 7018/2022 (supra) filed before Supreme Court, challenging Tribunal’s judgment dated 25.04.2022, came to be decided vide judgment dated 09.08.2023. Setting aside direction given in para 8 for payment of environmental compensation as an interim compensation to the extent of Rs. 2 Crores, Supreme Court on the question of quantum of interim compensation remanded the matter to Tribunal for reconsideration. Supreme Court’s judgment dated 09.08.2023 reads as under:

¶319

“Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶320

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 25^th April, 2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal. There is a finding recorded by the National Green Tribunal that STP operated by the appellant was non-compliant for a period of 135 days. In the appeal, there is no challenge to the said finding. The challenge is to the quantification of compensation payable by the appellant of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores) by way of interim measure. The Committee of Experts proposed compensation of Rs.33,75,000/- (Rupees thirty three lakhs seventy five thousand) which the appellant has deposited, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court.

¶321

3. After having perused paragraph No.8 of the impugned judgment, we find that there is absolutely no reason recorded by the Tribunal for coming to the conclusion that the appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores) towards the interim compensation. The Tribunal has not given reasons why the compensation suggested by the Committee of Experts should not be accepted. The Committee had suggested that the interim compensation should be quantified at Rs.33,75,000/- (Rupees thirty three lakhs seventy five thousand). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that there are further reports filed by the Committee and the National Green Tribunal is monitoring the compliance.

¶322

¶323

4. As no reasons have been recorded for arriving at a figure of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores), we propose to remand the case to the National Green Tribunal for reconsideration of the quantum of interim compensation amount payable by the appellant.

¶324

5. Accordingly, we set aside that part of the paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment by which a direction was given to the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores) by way of interim compensation .

¶325

6. We direct the Tribunal to decide the issue of quantum of interim compensation afresh after hearing the parties.

¶326

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that a sum of Rs.33,75,000/- (Rupees thirty three lakhs seventy five thousand) has been deposited by the appellant with the District Magistrate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Till the adjudication is made by the National Green Tribunal on the amount of interim compensation payable by the appellant, the sum of Rs.33,75,000/(Rupees thirty three lakhs seventy-five thousand) shall be treated as interim compensation.

¶327

8. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed .

¶328

9. We request the Tribunal to decide the issue of payment of interim compensation as expeditiously as possible.”

¶329

OA along with MA came up before Tribunal for further consideration on 29.09.2023. Tribunal found that Supreme Court has set aside direction with regard to deposit of Rs. 2 Crores by way of interim compensation and on the quantum of interim compensation, Tribunal has been required to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties. Further, amount of Rs.33,75,000/- already deposited by appellants pursuant to Supreme Court’s order dated 26.09.2022 has been directed to be treated as interim compensation. The amount was deposited with District Magistrate, Jaipur, State of Rajasthan.

¶330

¶331

Tribunal also observed that JDA did not object to the computation of Rs.33,75,000/- towards environmental compensation for 135 days as per Action Taken Report dated 03.01.2022 submitted by Committee. The said amount was computed taking into account the following:

¶332

(i) Pollution impact;

¶333

(ii) Number of days of non-compliance;

¶334

(iii) The factor of Rs. for environmental compensation;

¶335

(iv) Factor of scale of operation; and

¶336

(v) Location factor.

¶337

However, Tribunal found that Joint Committee has computed interim compensation of Rs.33,75,000/- by taking factor of Rs. as Rs.25,000/- per day though it was not consistent with the norms laid down by RSPCB, the Statutory Regulator, for computation of environmental compensation.

¶338

RSPCB stated that as per the norms laid down by it, applicable for computation for environmental compensation, value of Rupees mentioned therein, is Rs.52,000/- per day and not Rs.25,000/- per day.

¶339

Learned Counsel appearing for RSPCB stated that Joint Committee while suggesting environmental compensation could not have made out its own yardsticks for computation of environmental compensation but should have followed the norms laid down by RSPCB, in this regard, since RSPCB is the Statutory Body empowered and entitled to compute environmental compensation in case of any violation of environmental laws by application of principle of ‘Polluter Pays’.

¶340

¶341

In this backdrop, this Tribunal by order dated 29.09.2023 permitted State of Rajasthan i.e., respondent 1 and RSPCB i.e., respondent 3 (but wrongly mentioned as respondent 6 in para 4 of the order dated 29.09.2023), to submit fresh computation/calculation of environmental compensation with adequate reasons supporting such calculation.

¶342

Reply/Status Report dated 06.11.2023 filed by RSPCB:

¶343

Respondent 3 i.e., RSPCB has filed its reply-cum-status report dated 06.11.2023. Therein, environmental compensation has been computed for 135 days at the rate of Rs.52,000/- per day, following its own “ mechanism

¶344

laid down for calculation, imposition and recovery of environmental

¶345

compensation ”, copy whereof has been filed as part of annexure-C at page 395, wherein para 2- “Procedure for calculating amount of environmental

¶346

compensation for industries” reads as under:

¶347

“ 2. Procedure for calculating amount of environmental compensation for Industries

¶348

The environmental compensation for the industries will be calculated as per the following formula:

¶349

EC-PI X N X S X LF X RF

¶350

Where, EC is the amount of environmental compensation in Rs. PI is Pollution Index of sector N is the number of days of violation S is a factor for scale of operation LF is location factor

¶351

RF is a factor in Rupees for EC, which takes into account the violations on part of the PP

¶352

The above variables may be fixed as per following procedure:

¶353

PI (Pollution Index)

¶354

The following values of PI have been recommended in the CPCB report-

¶355

¶356

Category	Red	Orange	Green
PI	80	50	30

¶357

On similar lines, values of PI for industries, hotels, construction projects, hospitals, mines, common facilities etc. are indicated at annexure ‘A’.

¶358

S (Scale of operation)

¶359

Value of S may be taken varying from 0.25 to 1.25 depending upon the scale of operation. Different values of S has been worked out for Industries, Hotels, Mines, Hospitals, HCEs other than hospitals, construction projects, CHTP/ STP, CIDF for HW, CTDF for BMW, CTDF for E-waste and other activities having only source of pollution such as DG sets. These values are given at Annexure ‘B’.

¶360

LF (Location Factor)

¶361

Value of Location Factor will be based on population of the city/town and location of the Industrial activity. For the industrial unit located within municipal boundary or up to 10 Km distance from the municipal boundary of the city/town, following values of location factors (LF) has been taken based on the population of the city/town:

¶362

S.No.	Population (in Lacs)*	Location Factor
1	Upto one lac	1.0
2	More than one lac upto 5 lac	1.25
3	More than 5 lac upto 10 lac	1.5
4	More than 10 lac	2.0

¶363

*Population of the city/town as per the latest Census of India

¶364

LF will be 1.0 in case unit is located at a distance > 10Km from the municipal boundary.

¶365

RF (Rupee Factor)

¶366

Value of RF will include all possible violations and each violation will have different weightage depending upon its gravity/ impact on the environment and RF is equal to sum of 200+ weightages of all violations. However, an upper limit of 300

¶367

¶368

has been considered which means that the RF will not exceed 300 in any case. Values of weightages of various violations for different sectors are listed at Annexure ‘C’.

¶369

Note:-

¶370

i. In any case, N (number of days) may be different for various violations. In such case, the amount will be calculated individually for different violations and added.

¶371

ii. In case of results of analysis not conforming to the prescribed standards, the number of days will be counted from the date of collection of sample up to the date of submission of analysis report (from State Board or laboratory recognized by the RSPCB/CPCB/MoEF&CC) conforming to the prescribed standards after rectifying the shortcomings in pollution control measures by the Project Proponent.

¶372

iii. In case of repetition of violations, the amount of environmental compensation will be increased by 25%, on each repetition .

¶373

iv. Although effort has been made to include all possible violations, which a PP may make, there might be cases of violations which do not fit into any of the category. In such cases, the ECC will decide the weightage and RF of such violation.”

¶374

The value of ‘S’ i.e., Scale of Operation mentioned above is detailed

¶375

in annexure-B to the above operating procedure and at page 406 of the

¶376

paper book, it reads as under:

¶377

		S fac	_tor _
Industry	micro		small		medium	lar	ge
	0.25		0.5		1	1.	25
Hotel	upto 50 beds	more beds than	than and 300 b	50 less eds	300 beds or more
	0.25		0.5		1.25
Construction projects	built up area less than 20000 sq metre	bullt more 2000 and lac sq	up 0 sq upto m.	area than metre 1.50	built up area more than 1.5 lac sq m. upto 5 lac sq.m.	built area than sq.m.	up more 5 lac
	0.25		0.5		0.75	1.	25

¶378

¶379

Hospitals	upto 20 beds	more than 20 and upto 200 beds	more than 200 and upto 500 beds	More than 500 beds
	0.25	0.5	0.75	1.25
HCEs other than	Clinics/ dispensaries	Animal houses	Veterinary Institutes
hospitals	0.25	0.5	0.5
Mine	Upto 5 ha	More than 5 ha and upto 100 ha	More than 100 ha
	0.25	0.5	1.25
CTDF (HW)	area of facility upto 10 Acre	Area of facility more than 10 upto 20 Acre	Area of facility more than 20 Acre
	0.25	0.5	1.25
CTDF (e-Waste)	Ares of facility upto 1000 square meter	Area of facility more than 1000 square meter upto 5000 square meter	Area of facility more than 5000 square meter upto 10000 square _meter _	Area of facility more than 10000 square meter
	0.25	0.5	0.75	1
CTDF (BMW)	Bed connected with facility upto 5000	Bed connected with facility upto 5001 upto 10000	Bed connected with facility more than 10000
	0.25	0.5	1.25
Land Fill Site (MSW)	Benefited population upto 1 lac	Benefited population more than 1 Lac upto 5 lac	Benefited population more than 5 Lac upto 10 lac	Benefited population more than 10 Lac
	0.25	0.5	1	1.25
*CETP/STP*	Design capacity upto 200 kld	Design capacity more than 200 kld and upto 1 MLD	Design capacity more than 1 MLD and upto 10 MLD	*Design* *capacity* *more than* *10 MLD*
	0.25	0.5	1	*1.25*
Activities/ operations not covered above; like	D.G. set upto 1 MVA	D.G. set more than 1 MVA ad less than 5 MVA	D.G. set of 5 MVA or more
D.G. set etc
.	0.25	0.5	0.75

¶380

¶381

The above chart shows that in respect of STP with a designed capacity of more than 10 MLD, value of ‘S’ is 1.25 which has been taken by RSPCB, in the present case, for computation of environmental compensation for 135 days.

¶382

Further, for weightage of various violations for different sectors necessary for computing Rupee Factor i.e., ‘RF’, annexure-C has been referred in the above-mentioned procedure and this annexure –C to the procedure is at page 407 of the paper book, reads as under:

¶383

				Weighta	ge of violations
Industry/ Hotel/Contr ction projec	a ts	Hospitals/H s	CE	Mine	CTDF (HW/E- Waste/BM /MSW)	W	CETP/STP	Activities/o ations covered ab like D.G.	per not ove;
Violation	RF	Violation	RF	Violation	RF Violation	RF	_Violation _	RF Violation	RF
Operating without consent	10	Operating without consent or authorisation	10	Operating without consent	10 Operating without consent or authorisati on	10	Operating without consent or authorisa tion	10 Operating without consent	10
Operating in violation of closure directions	15	Operating in violation of closure directions	15	Operating in violation of closure directions	15 Operating in violation of direction under section 31A/33A	15	Operating in violation of direction under section 31A/33A	15 Operating in violation of closure directions	15
Abstraction of ground water without permission	20	ETP not provided	20	Violation of EIA Notification or EC conditions	25 Violation of EIA Notificati on or EC conditions	20	Violation of EIA Notification or EC conditions	20 Inadequate height of DG stack	15
Effluent/ emission not conforming to standards (exceedance more than 25%)	25	No arrangement / membership for disposal of BMW with CBWTF	30	Indiscrim inate disposal of mine waste within lease area	20 Abstracti on of ground water without permissio n	10	^Abstraction of ground water without permission	10 Acoustic enclosure no provided with DG set	t 20
*Making* *discharge* *of effluent* *at any* *place*	25	Effluent/ emission not conforming to standards (exceedance	25	Indiscrim inate disposal of mine waste outside	25 Effluent/ emission not conforming to standards (exceedan	25	Effluent/ emission not conforming to standards (exceedan	25Making discharge of effluent at any place in violation of	25

¶384

¶385

in *violation* of *consent* *conditions* or *bypassing* *SCADA* *(in case* of *CETP* *connected* *units)*	more 25%)	than	lease area	ce more than 25%)	ce more than 25%)	consent conditions

¶386

It is pointed out that weightage of violations, in the present case, is 25 and the same has been applied for the purpose of computation of environmental compensation by RSPCB.

¶387

In para 3 of the computation procedure, cases of non-compliance, which will be considered for taking cognizance of imposition of environmental compensation are detailed as under:

¶388

“ 3. Guidelines for imposing environmental compensation on violators

¶389

Following cases will be considered for taking cognizance of noncompliance and fit for levying Environmental Compensation:

¶390

1. Discharging environmental pollutants in excess of the standards prescribed under EP Rules and/ or prescribed in the consent orders issued under Air/Water Act.

¶391

2. Non-compliance of the directions issued by the State Board such as directions under section 33A/ 31A of Water & Air Acts or section 5 of EP Act or non-adherence to the action plans submitted to the Board etc.

¶392

3. Failure to install OCEMS, intentional avoidance of data submission or data manipulation by tampering OCEMS.

¶393

4. Accidental discharge of effluent/ emissions for short durations which may cause damage to the environment.

¶394

5. Intentional discharge of effluent or emissions including bypassing pollution control devices, which may result in damage to the environment.

¶395

¶396

6. Discharge or disposal of effluent at a point/ place other than permitted in the consent order of environmental clearance.

¶397

7. Failure to prevent discharge of pollutants into water bodies .

¶398

8. Operating without obtaining prior consent to operate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and/or Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

¶399

9. Operation of Health Care Facilities without authorization under BMWM Rules, 2016;

¶400

10. No membership of CBWTF for disposal of biomedical waste;

¶401

11. Improper Segregation of generated biomedical waste as per color coded system prescribed under BMWM Rules, 2016;

¶402

12. No facility for pre-treatment of yellow (h) category waste (microbiology, biotechnology and other clinical laboratory waste);

¶403

13. Storage facility not provided for segregated biomedical waste (applicable for bedded hospitals);

¶404

14. Not provided Effluent Treatment Plant for treatment of wastewater, in case when city sewerage network is not connected to terminal STP, and

¶405

15. Non-compliance to other responsibilities as stipulated for Healthcare Facilities under BMWM Rules, 2016.

¶406

16. Any other violation of Environmental Regulations not covered above which ECC deems fit for imposition of environmental compensation.”

¶407

There is a note under para 3, which provides the amount of minimum compensation, leviable in case of non-violation and the said note reads as under:

¶408

“Note-

¶409

i) In any case, minimum compensation shall be at under :

¶410

¶411

1	Hospitals	1200/- per day
2	Common BMW disposalfacility	3000/-per day
3	*Discharge of untreated/partial Sewage* *(city population more than 15 lacs*	*Rs 10 crore*
4	Discharge of untreated/partial treated Sewage (city population more than 5 lacs upto 15lacs)	Rs 1 crore
5	Discharge of untreated/partial treated Sewage (city population more than 1 lacs upto 5 lacs)	Rs 10 lac
6	Discharge of untreated/partial treated Sewage (city population upto 1 lacs)	Rs 5 lac
7	Improper Solid Waste Management (city population more than 15 lacs)	Rs 5 crore
8	Improper Solid Waste Management (city population more than 5 lacsupto 15lacs)	Rs 1 crore
9	Improper Solid Waste Management (city population more than 1 lacsupto 5lacs)	Rs 10 lac
10	Improper Solid Waste Management (city population upto 1 lac)	Rs 5 lac
11	Other units	5000/-per day

¶412

ii) In specific cases, where the Board is of the view that the damages caused to the environment are of such magnitude that it may require enormous efforts/money to restore the environment or reconstruct/ repair property including damage to crop/ crop yield or compensate the affected masses till such restoration is completed, a detailed study may be ordered to be carried out by ECC through one or more expert agencies/ institutions to assess such damages and work out the cost of restoration and environmental compensation to be levied on polluters. The expenditure incurred on such study (studies) shall be borne by the polluters.

¶413

(iii) The formula for working out environmental compensation as given in these guidelines is for causing minor undetectable damages to the environment.

¶414

(iv) Number of days for which violation took place is the period between the day of violation observed/due date of implementation compliance and the day of compliance verified by the Regional Office.”

¶415

¶416

In para 4, provisions of interim compensation has also been made, which reads as under:

¶417

“ 4. Imposition of Interim Environmental Compensation

¶418

Since imposition of final EC can be done only after the industry/project proponent rectifies the violation, the ECC may impose interim EC on the basis of period of violation when the violation was detected by the State Board and time period needed to rectify the violations available if any. In case no such time period is available, ECC may impose interim EC based on estimated time by which the violation can be rectified.

¶419

However, in all such cases where interim EC has been imposed will be reviewed by ECC for deciding final EC once the violations are completely rectified and verified by the State Board.”

¶420

RSPCB has said in para 6 of its Reply-cum-Status Report dated 06.11.2023 that show cause notice (annexure-E at page 414) dated 17.02.2022 was issued to Commissioner, JDA, requiring JDA to show cause as to why environmental compensation of Rs.70,20,000/- be not imposed and levied on the principle of ‘Polluter Pays’ for various violations/deficiencies found during Joint Committee’s inspection dated 08.12.2021 for the period of 135 days i.e., from 27.07.2021 to 08.12.2021. The violations are detailed in para 7 of the show cause notice as under:

¶421

“i. Perusal of electricity consumption details revealed that all the unit operations had not been operated completely during the period from 27.11.2021 to 07.12.2021 .

¶422

ii. No metering arrangements have been provided at by-pass lines. Thus, possibility of direct passing of raw sewage into disposal conduit can’t be ruled out.

¶423

iii. STP has not been provided with online continuous effluent monitoring system (OCEMS) for online measurement of quality of treated waste water.

¶424

iv. Thickened sludge after filter press is being dumped in open land inside the premises without recovering the biogas . The sludge drying bed/area is also not defined.

¶425

¶426

v. Aeration tank, Sludge Volume Index (SVI) was observed as more than 250, that reveals the poor treatability and liftover of the sludge to secondary settling tank.

¶427

vi. The analysis of sample collected from final outlet of the STP revealed that the STP was not achieving the prescribed discharge standards for BOD, COD, TSS & Fecal Coliform.

¶428

vii. As the present ASP technology based 30 MLD STP designed to achieve BOD as 20 mg/l, COD as 250 mg/l, TSS as 50 mg/l and pH as 6-8; however to achieve the new prescribed standards of pH 5.5-9, BOD 10 mg/l, COD 50 mg/l, TSS 20 mg/l and fecal coliform 100 MPN/100ml upgradation of the STP is needed.”

¶429

Thereafter, samples from STPs were taken on 21.02.2022, 24.05.2022, 25.07.2022, 12.09.2022, 11.10.2022, 05.12.2022, 09.01.2023, 15.02.2023, 25.02.2023, 20.03.2023, 12.04.2023, 09.05.2023, 23.06.2023, 19.07.2023, 21.08.2023, 14.09.2023 and

¶430

16.10.2023. Analysis Reports reveal that prescribed norms/parameters have not been complied with and STPs have failed to achieve the prescribed standards.

¶431

RSPCB has also said that Joint Committee recommended interim compensation of Rs.33,75,000/- for 135 days, computing environmental compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per day ignoring the guidelines and norms laid down by RSPCB though it had no such authority nor any valid reason to do so.

¶432

RSPCB has also said that in view of the directions of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 7018/2022 (supra), JDA has deposited Rs. Rs.33,75,000/- with Collector Jaipur towards interim compensation as per the recommendation of Joint Committee but for 135 days of the

¶433

¶434

violation i.e., 27.07.2021 to 08.12.2021, the total amount of environmental compensation comes to Rs.70,20,000/- and, therefore, remaining amount should also be paid by JDA.

¶435

Further, JDA has also violated environmental norms continuously even after 08.12.2021 by discharging untreated sewage, which is not meeting the parameters. JDA is committing persistent and continuous violation of Section 24 of Water Act 1974 and, therefore, for the further period from 09.12.2021 to 01.11.2023, it is also liable to pay further environmental compensation. RSPCB has computed entire environmental compensation for the period from 27.07.2021 to 01.11.2023 i.e., for 828 days as Rs.3,82,05,000/-.

¶436

Learned Counsel appearing for RSPCB contended that after deducting the sum of Rs.33,75,000/-, remaining amount of Rs.3,48,30,000/- should be directed to be paid by JDA.

¶437

Learned Counsel appearing for RSPCB has also drew our attention to the details of computation for 135 days of violation i.e., 27.07.2021 to 08.12.2021 and 693 days i.e., 09.12.2021 to 01.11.2023 given in charts filed as annexure-D at page 413 and annexure-H at page 435. The said charts show that following the formula given in the mechanism of calculation of environmental compensation laid down by RSPCB, computation has been made applying formula “EC = PI × N × S × LF × RF”: (A) For the period of 135 days, environmental compensation is:

¶438

80 × 135 × 1.25 × 2 × 260 (200+25+15+10+10) = Rs.70,20,000/-

¶439

(B) For period of 693 days, environmental compensation:

¶440

80 × 693 × 1.25 × 2 × 225 (200+25) = Rs.3,11,85,000/-

¶441

¶442

When we confronted Learned Counsel for JDA to the above calculation details of RSPCB and enquired as to what objection in law, it has to the said method of computation, it could give no satisfactory reply except of saying that JDA is a Statutory body and, therefore, a considerate view should be taken and instead of high rate of Rupee value taken by RSPCB, the value of Rupees taken by Joint Committee i.e., at the rate of Rs.25,000/-, compensation should be computed. In fact, he argued that there is no lack of bona-fide on the part of JDA and no deliberate intention to flout environmental laws, therefore, no compensation at all should be imposed.

¶443

We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

¶444

The discussion made above clearly shows that there is continuation of discharge of untreated sewage by JDA, causing pollution and also violating statutory prohibition contained in Section 24 of Water Act 1974, which restrain anybody from discharging any polluting material on land, stream, river etc. if the discharge is not meeting the prescribed standards.

¶445

In the present case, record shows that discharge is not meeting the prescribed standards, therefore, there is a clear violation of Section 24 of Water Act 1974. JDA is clearly violating environmental laws and thereby, causing pollution. In the circumstances, it is liable to pay environmental compensation by application of principle of ‘Polluter Pays’. This Tribunal is under an obligation to adjudicate substantial question relating to environment by application of principle of ‘Polluter Pays’ by virtue of Section 20 of NGT Act 2010 which says as under:

¶446

¶447

“ 20. The Tribunal shall, while passing any order or decision or award, apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle .”

¶448

When anybody violates environmental laws and causes pollution, such violator is liable to pay environmental compensation by application of principle of ‘Polluter Pays’. This is the law laid down by Supreme Court also when recognising the principle of ‘Polluter Pays’ as an embedded principle of environmental laws.

¶449

This Principle was recognized as part of environmental law in India in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212. Certain industries producing assets were dumping their waste. Even untreated waste water was allowed to flow freely polluting atmosphere and sub-terrain supply of water which ultimately caused darkening and dirtiness of wells and the streams water rendering it unfit for human consumption. Certain environmentalists’ organizations broadly alleging severe damage to villager’s health, filed a Writ petition as PIL in 1989 before Supreme Court. By that time, some of the units were already closed. Referring to Article 48-A in Directive Principles of State Policy and 51-A in the Fundamental duties of citizens, Supreme Court observed that said provisions say that State shall endeavour to protect and improve environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. One of the fundamental duties of citizens is to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creature. Where a Proponent has established its commercial unit and operate contrary to law flouting norms provided by law, Statutory Regulator is bound to act and if it fails, a judicial forum can direct it to act in accordance with law . Referring to Oleum

¶450

¶451

Gas leak case, i.e., M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 , Court observed in para 58 that the constitution bench held that enterprise must be held strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of social cost of carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity . Hazardous or inherently harmful activities for private profits can be tolerated only on the condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity indemnifies all those who suffer on account of carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not. 51. Court also referred to its earlier decision in Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action vs. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 77, wherein concerned Pollution Control Board identified about 22 industries responsible for causing pollution by discharge of their effluent and a direction was issued by Court observing that they were responsible to compensate the farmers. It was the duty of State Government to ensure that this amount was recovered from the industries and paid to the farmers. In para 67 of the judgment, Court said that the question of

¶452

liability of respondent units to defray the costs of remedial measures can also be looked into from another angle which has now come to be accepted universally as a sound principle , for example, ‘Polluter Pays’ principle. On this aspect, Court further observed as under:

¶453

“ 67. ...The Polluter Pays principle demands that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution, or produce the goods which cause the pollution. Under the principle it is not the role of government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of such damage, or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of the pollution incident to the taxpayer. The ‘Polluter Pays’ principle was promoted by the Organization for Economic Co-

¶454

¶455

operation and Development (OECD) during the 1970s when there was great public interest in environmental issues. During this time there were demands on government and other institutions to introduce policies and mechanisms for the protection of the environment and the public from the threats posed by pollution in a modern industrialized society. Since then, there has been considerable discussion of the nature of the polluter pays principle, but the precise scope of the principle and its implications for those involved in past, or potentially polluting activities have never been satisfactory agreed.

¶456

Despite the difficulties inherent in defining the principle, the European Community accepted it as a fundamental part of its strategy on environmental matters, and it has been one of the underlying principles of the four Community Action Programme on the Environment. The current Fourth Action Programme ([1987] OJC 328/1) makes it clear that the cost of preventing and eliminating nuisances must in principle be borne by the polluter' , and the polluter pays principle has now been incorporated into the European Community Treaty as part of the new Articles on the environment which were introduced by the Single European Act of 1986. Article 130-R(2) of the Treaty states that environmental considerations are to play a part in all the policies of the Community, and that action is to be based on three principles: the need for preventative action; the need for environmental damage to be rectified at source; and that the polluter should pay.”

¶457

Court further said that according to the above principle of ‘Polluter Pays’, responsibility for repairing the damage is that of the

¶458

offending industry . Sections 3 and 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 empower Central Government to give directions and take measures for giving effect to this principle. Court further said:

¶459

“...In all the circumstances of the case, we think it appropriate that the task of determining the amount required for carrying out the remedial measures, its recovery/realisation and the task of undertaking the remedial measures is placed upon the Central Government in the light of the provisions of the Environment [Protection] Act, 1986 . It is, of course, open to the Central Government to take the help and assistance of State Government, R.P.C.B. or such other agency or authority, as they think fit.”

¶460

¶461

The above principle has been followed in Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum vs. Union of India, 1996 (5) SCC 647 . In para 25, direction no. 2 reads as under:

¶462

2. The authority so constituted by the Central Government shall implement the “precautionary principle” and the “polluter pays” principle. The authority shall, with the help of expert opinion and after giving opportunity to the concerned polluters assess the loss to the ecology/environment in the affected areas and shall also identify the individuals/families who have suffered because of the pollution and shall assess the compensation to be paid to the said individuals/families. The authority shall further determine the compensation to be recovered from the polluters as cost of reversing the damaged environment . The authority shall lay down just and fair procedure for completing the exercise.

¶463

In Bittu Sehgal and Another vs Union of India & Others, (2001)

¶464

9 SCC 181 , referring the earlier judgments, Supreme Court has said that ‘Precautionary Principle’ and ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ have been accepted as part of the law of the land.

¶465

In Research Foundation for Science vs. Union of India & Ors.,

¶466

(2005) 13 SCC 186 , in para 26 and 29, Court, on ‘Polluter Pays’ Principle, has said as under:

¶467

“26. The liability of the importers to pay the amounts to be spent for destroying the goods in question cannot be doubted on applicability of precautionary principle and polluter-pays principle. These principles are part of the environmental law of India . There is constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environment. In order to fulfill the constitutional mandate various legislations have been enacted with attempt to solve the problem of environmental degradation.

¶468

29. The polluter-pays principle basically means that the producer of goods or other items should be responsible for the cost of preventing or dealing with any pollution that the process causes. This includes environmental cost as well as direct cost to the people or property, it also covers cost incurred in avoiding pollution and not just those related to

¶469

¶470

remedying any damage. It will include full environmental cost and not just those which are immediately tangible . The principle also does not mean that the polluter can pollute and pay for it . The nature and extent of cost and the circumstances in which the principle will apply may differ from case to case.”

¶471

In Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. C. Kenchappa & Others, (2006) 6 SCC 371 , principle of ‘Polluter Pays’ has been explained in detail referring to the earlier judgments in Indian

¶472

Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India (supra) and Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum (supra) .

¶473

Thus, broad principles of environmental laws are given, particularly, in regard of liability of environmental compensation applying principle of ‘Polluter Pays’, but the methodology for assessing/determining compensation is not provided in the statute. Even Rules framed under NGT Act 2010 are silent on this aspect. Issue of determination of EC is significant in the sense that it should be proportionate to or bears a reasonable nexus with the environmental damage and its remediation/restoration. Similarly in case of compensation to be determined for a victim, it needs to co-relate to injury caused or damage suffered by such person as also cost incurred for treatment/remediation. Computation of environmental compensation may involve some degree of subjectivity but broadly it must be based on objective considerations as it saddles financial liability upon the violator.

¶474

Taking into consideration multifarious situations relating to violation of environmental laws vis-a-vis different proponents, nature of cases involving violation of environmental laws can be categorized as under:

¶475

¶476

(i) Where Project/Activities are carried out without obtaining requisite statutory permissions/consents/clearances/NOC etc., affecting environment and ecology. For example, EC under EIA 2006; Consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981; Authorisation under Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and other Rules; NOC for extraction and use of ground water, wherever applicable, and similar requirements under other statutes.

¶477

(ii) Where proponents have violated conditions imposed under statutory Permissions, Consents, Clearances, NOC etc. affecting environment and ecology.

¶478

(iii) Where Proponents have carried out their activities causing damage to environment and ecology by not following standards/norms regarding cleanliness/pollution of air, water etc.

¶479

The above categories are further sub-divided, i.e., where the polluters/violators are corporate bodies/organizations/associations and group of the people, in contradistinction, to individuals; and another category, the individuals themselves responsible for such pollution.

¶480

Further category among above classification is, where, besides pollution of environment, proponents/violators action also affect the community at large regarding its source of livelihood, health etc.

¶481

The next relevant aspect is, whether damage to environment is irreversible, permanent or is capable of wholly or partial restoration/remediation/rejuvenation.

¶482

¶483

Determination/computation/assessment of environmental restoration/remediation/rejuvenation should also take care of damage caused to the environment, to the community, if any, and should also be preventive, deterrent and to some extent, must have an element of “being punitive”. The idea is not only for restoration/remediation or to mitigate damage/loss to environment, but also to discourage people/proponents from indulging in the activities or carrying out their affairs in such a manner so as to cause damage/loss to environment.

¶484

To impose appropriate ‘environmental compensation’ for causing harm to environment, besides other relevant factors as pointed out, one has to understand the kind and nature of ‘Harmness cost’. This includes risk assessment. The concept of risk assessment will include humanhealth risk assessment and ecological risk assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has provided a guideline to understand harm caused to environment as well as people. For the purpose of humanhealth risk assessment, it comprised of three broad steps, namely, planning and problem formulation; effects and exposure assessment and risk categorization. The first part involves participation of stakeholders and others to get input; in the second aspect health effect of hazardous substances as well as likelihood and level of exposure to the pollutant are examined and the third step involves integration of effects and exposure assessment to determine risk.

¶485

Similarly, ecological risk assessment is an approach to determine risk of environmental harm by human activities. Here also we can find answer following three major steps, i.e., problem codification; analysis of exposure and risk characterization. First part encompasses identification

¶486

¶487

of risk and what needs to be protected. Second step insists upon crystallization of factors that are exposed, degree to exposure and further comprised of two components, i.e., risk assessment and risk description.

¶488

In totality, problem is multi-fold and multi-angular. Solution is not straight but involves various shades and nuances and vary from case to case. Even Internationally, there is no thumb-rule to make assessment of damage and loss caused to environment due to activities carried out individually or collectively by the people, and for remediation/restoration. Different considerations are applicable and have been applied. As the term suggest, compensation means a return for loss or damage sustained. Therefore, it must always be just and not based on a whim or capricious.

¶489

In India, where commercial activities were carried out without obtaining statutory permissions/consents/clearance/NOC, Courts have determined, in some matters, compensation by fixing certain percentage of cost of project. In some cases, volume of business transactions, turnover, magnitude of establishment of proponent have also been considered as guiding factors to determine environmental compensation. In some cases, a lump sum amount has been imposed.

¶490

Nature is extremely precious. It is difficult to price elements of nature like light, Oxygen (air), water in different forms like rain, snow, vapour etc. When nature is exploited beyond carrying capacity, results are harmful and dangerous. People do not understand the value of what nature has given free. Recently, in COVID-19 Wave-II, scarcity of Oxygen proved its worth. In dreadful second phase of the above pandemic, any amount offered, in some cases, could not save life for want of Oxygen. Further, damage to environment, sometimes do not reflect in individuals

¶491

¶492

immediately and may take time but injury is there. In such cases, process of determination of compensation may be different.

¶493

In an article, ‘ the cost of pollution-Environmental Economics’ by Linas Cekanavicius, 2011, it has been suggested, where commercial activities have been carried out without consent etc., and pollution standards have been violated, Total Pollution Cost (hereinafter referred to as ‘TPC’ ) can be applied. It combines the cost of abatement of environmental pollution and cost of pollution induced environmental damage. The formula comes to TPC(z)=AC(z)+ED(z) , where z denotes the pollution level. Further, cleanup cost/remediation cost of pollution estimated to be incurred by authorities can also be used to determine environmental compensation.

¶494

When there is collective violation, sometimes the issue arose about apportionment of cost. Where more than one violator is indulged, apportionment may not be equal since user’s respective capacity to produce waste, contribution of different categories to overall costs etc. would be relevant. The element of economic benefit to company resulting from violation is also an important aspect to be considered, otherwise observations of Supreme Court that the amount of environmental compensation must be deterrent, will become obliterated. Article 14 of the Constitution says that unequal cannot be treated equally, and this principle must also be given due consideration and be taken care.

¶495

Determination/assessment/computation of environmental compensation cannot be arbitrary. It must be founded on some objective and intelligible considerations and criteria. Simultaneously, Supreme Court also said that its calculations must be based on a principle which is simple and can be applied easily. In other words, it can be said that

¶496

¶497

wherever Court finds it appropriate, expert’s assessment can be sought but sometimes experts also go by their own convictions and belief and fail to take into account judicial precedents which have advanced cause of environment by applying the principles of ‘Sustainable Development’, ‘Precautionary Approach’ and ‘Polluter Pays’, etc. In such circumstances, it is the ultimate responsibility of Court’s to assess and compute environmental compensation, rationally.

¶498

Clean-up cost or TPC, may be a relevant factor to evaluate damage, but in the diverse conditions as available in this Country, no single factor or formula may serve the purpose. Determination should be a quantitative estimation; the amount must be deterrent to polluter/violator and though there is some element of subjectivity but broadly assessment/computation must be founded on objective considerations. Appropriate compensation must be determined to cover not only the aspect of violation of law on the part of polluter/violator but also damage to the environment, its remediation/restoration, loss to the community at large and other relevant factors like deterrence, element of penalty etc.

¶499

CPCB Guidelines: This Tribunal, vide order dated 31.08.2018 passed in OA 593/2017, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and another vs. Union of India and others observed that “ CPCB may also assess and recover compensation for damage to the environment and said fund may be kept in a separate account and utilized in terms of an action plan for protection of the environment ”. CPCB, accordingly, published a report on 15.07.2019, suggesting methodology for assessment of environmental compensation which may be levied or imposed upon industrial establishments who are guilty of violation of environmental laws and have

¶500

¶501

caused damage/degradation/loss to environment. It does not encompass individuals, statutory institutions and Government etc. Report is titled as “ Report of the CPCB In-house Committee on Methodology for Assessing Environmental compensation and Action Plan to Utilize the Fund ” which was finalized in the meeting held on 27.03.2019. It shortlisted the incidents requiring an occasion for determining environmental compensation. Six such incidents, shortlisted, are:

¶502

“ Cases considered for levying Environmental Compensation (EC):

¶503

a) Discharges in violation of consent conditions, mainly prescribed standards/consent limits.

¶504

b) Not complying with the directions issued, such as direction for closure due to non-installation of OCEMS, non-adherence to the action plans submitted etc.

¶505

c) Intentional avoidance of data submission or data manipulation by tampering the Online Continuous Emission / Effluent Monitoring systems.

¶506

d) Accidental discharges lasting for short durations resulting into damage to the environment.

¶507

e) Intentional discharges to the environment -- land, water and air resulting into acute injury or damage to the environment.

¶508

f) Injection of treated/partially treated/ untreated effluents to ground water.”

¶509

For the instances at item (a), (b) and (c), report says that ‘Pollution Index’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘PI’ ) would be used as a basis to levy environmental compensation.

¶510

CPCB had already published Guidelines categorizing industries into Red, Orange, Green and White, based on the concept of PI . The PI is arrived after considering quantity and quality of emissions/effluents

¶511

¶512

generated, types of hazardous waste generated and consumption of resources. PI of an industrial sector is a numerical number in the range of 0 to 100 and is represented as follows:

¶513

PI=f (Water Pollution Score, Air Pollution Score and HW Generation Score).

¶514

Since range of PI is 0 to 100, increase in value of PI denotes increasing degree of pollution hazard from industrial sector. Accordingly, report says, for determining environmental compensation in respect of cases covered by item (a), (b) and (c), it will apply following formula:

¶515

“EC = PI × N × R × S × LF

¶516

Where,

¶517

EC is Environmental Compensation in Rs. PI = Pollution Index of industrial sector N =Number of days of violation took place R =A factor in Rupees (₹) for EC S =Factor for scale of operation LF =Location factor”

¶518

The formula incorporates anticipated severity of environmental pollution in terms of PI, duration of violation in terms of number of days, scale of operation in terms of micro and small/medium/large industry and location in terms of proximity to the large habitations. A note is also given under the aforesaid formula and it reads as under:

¶519

“Note:

¶520

a. The industrial sectors have been categorized into Red, Orange and Green, based on their Pollution Index in the range of 60 to 100, 41 to 59 and 21 to 40, respectively. It was suggested that the average pollution index of 80, 50 and 30 may be taken for calculating the Environmental Compensation for Red, Orange and Green categories of industries, respectively.

¶521

b. N, number of days for which violation took place is the period between the day of violation observed/due date of direction’s

¶522

¶523

compliance and the day of compliance verified by CPCB/SPCB/PCC.

¶524

c. R is a factor in Rupees, which may be a minimum of 100 and maximum of 500 . It is suggested to consider R as 250, as the Environmental Compensation in cases of violation.

¶525

d. S could be based on small/medium/large industry categorization, which may be 0.5 for micro or small, 1.0 for medium and 1.5 for large units.

¶526

e. LF, could be based on population of the city/town and location of the industrial unit. For the industrial unit located within municipal boundary or up to 10 km distance from the municipal boundary of the city/town, following factors (LF) may be used:

¶527

Table No. 1.1: Location Factor Values

¶528

*S. No*	_Population_*	*Location Factor*^#
	*(million)*	*(LF)*
1	1 to <5	1.25
2	5 to <10	1.5
3	10 and above	2.0

¶529

*Population of the city/town as per the latest Census of India #LF will be 1.0 in case unit is located >10km from municipal boundary LF is presumed as 1 for city/town having population less than one million.

¶530

For notified Ecologically Sensitive areas, for beginning, LF may be assumed as 2.0. However, for critically Polluted Areas, LF may be explored in future.

¶531

f. In any case, minimum Environmental Compensation shall be ₹ 5000/day.

¶532

g. In order to include deterrent effect for repeated violations, EC may be increased on exponential basis, i.e. by 2 times on 1^st repetition, 4 times on 2^nd repetition and 8 times on further repetitions.

¶533

h. If the operations of the industry are inevitable and violator continues its operations beyond 3 months then for deterrent compensation, EC may be increased by 2, 4 and 8 times for 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th quarter, respectively. Even if the operations are

¶534

¶535

inevitable beyond 12 months, violator will not be allowed to operate.

¶536

i. Besides EC, industry may be prosecuted or closure directions may be issued, whenever required.

¶537

A sample calculation for Environmental Compensation (without deterrent factor) is given at Table No. 1.2. It can be noticed that for all instances, EC for Red, Orange, and Green category of industries varies from 3,750 to 60,000 ₹/day.

¶538

Table No. 1.2: A sample calculation for Environmental Compensation

¶539

*Industrial* *Category*	*Red*	*Orange*	*Green*
*Pollution* *Index (PI)*	60-100	41-59	21-40
*Average PI*	80	50	30
*R-Factor*		250
*S-Factor*		0.5-1.5
*L-Factor*		1.00-2.00
*Environment* al *Compensatio* *n (₹/day)*	*10,000-* *60,000*	*6,250-37,500*	*5,000-22,500*

¶540

The determination of environmental compensation includes actual loss to the environment and cost of remediation including damage to florafauna and human beings.

¶541

Chapter III considers determination of environmental compensation where a proponent has discharged pollutants in water bodies or failed to prevent discharge of pollutants in water bodies and also failed to implement Waste Management Rules. Laying down Guidelines for determination of environmental compensation in this category, report has

¶542

¶543

referred to Tribunal’s order dated 06.12.2018 in OA No. 125/2017 and MA No. 1337/2018, Court on its own motion vs. State of Karnataka , stating, as under:

¶544

“Since failure of preventing the pollutants being discharged in water bodies (including lakes) and failure to implement solid and other waste management rules are too frequent and widespread, the CPCB must lay down specific guidelines to deal with the same, throughout India, including the scale of compensation to be recovered from different individuals/authorities, in addition to or as alternative to prosecution. The scale may have slabs, depending on extent of pollution caused, economic viability, etc. Deterrent effect for repeated wrongs may also be provided .”

¶545

It is suggested that determination of environmental compensation in this category would have two components, (i) Cost saved/benefits achieved by the concerned individual/authority by not having proper waste/sewage managing system; and (ii) Cost to the environment (environmental externality) due to untreated/partially treated waste/sewage because insufficient capacity of waste/sewage management facility. It further says that Cost saved/benefits achieved would also include interest on capital cost of waste/sewage management facility, daily operation and maintenance (O & M) cost associated with the facility. The determination of environmental compensation, therefore, is suggested, applying following formula:

¶546

“Therefore, generalized formula for Environmental Compensation may be described as:

¶547

EC= Capital Cost Factor × Marginal Average Capital Cost for Establishment of Waste or Sewage Management or Treatment Facility × (Waste or Sewage Management or Treatment Capacity Gap) + O&M Cost Factor × Marginal Average O&M Cost × (Waste or Sewage Management or Treatment Capacity Gap) × No. of Days for which facility was not available + Environmental Externality ”

¶548

¶549

Environmental externality has been placed in two categories (i) untreated/partially treated sewage discharge and (ii) improper municipal solid waste management and detailed in table 3.1 and 3.2, as under:

¶550

“ Table No. 3.1: Environmental externality for untreated/partially treated sewage discharge

¶551

*Sewage* *Treatment* *Capacity* *Gap (MLD)*	*Marginal Cost of* *Environmental* *Externality (Rs. per* *MLD/day)*	*Minimum and Maximum* *value of Environmental* *Externality recommended* *by the Committee (Lacs Rs.* *Per Day)*
Up to 200	75	Min. 0.05, Max. 0.10
201-500	85	Min. 0.25, Max. 0.35
501 and above	90	Min. 0.60, Max. 0.80

¶552

Table No. 3.2: Environmental externality for improper municipal solid waste management

¶553

*Municipal* *Solid Waste* *Management* *Capacity* *Gap (TPD)*	*Marginal Cost of* *Environmental* *Externality (Rs. per* *ton per day)*	*Minimum and Maximum* *value of Environmental* *Externality recommended* *by the Committee (Lacs* *Rs. Per Day)*
Up to 200	15	Min. 0.01, Max. 0.05
201-500	30	Min. 0.10, Max. 0.15
501-1000	35	Min. 0.25, Max. 0.3
1001-2000	40	Min. 0.50, Max. 0.60
Above 2000		Max. 0.80

¶554

”

¶555

CPCB has further recommend a fixed cap for minimum and maximum cost for capital and O & M component for environmental compensation in table 3.3 and 3.4, as under:

¶556

“ Table No. 3.3: Minimum and Maximum EC to be levied for untreated/partially treated sewage discharge

¶557

*Class of the City/Town*	*Mega-City*	*Million-*	*Class-I*
		*plus City*	*City/Town*
			*and*
			*others*
*Minimum and Maximum*	Min. 2000	Min. 1000	Min. 100

¶558

¶559

*values of EC (Total Capital* *Cost Component)* *recommended by the* *Committee(Lacs Rs.)*	Max. 20000	Max. 10000	Max. 1000
*Minimum and Maximum* *values of EC (O&M Cost*	Min. 2 Max. 20	Min. 1 Max. 10	Min. 0.5 Max. 5
*Component) recommended*
*by the Committee (Lacs* *Rs./day)*

¶560

Table No. 3.4: Minimum and Maximum EC to be levied for improper municipal solid waste management

¶561

*Class of the City/Town*	*Mega-City*	*Million-* *plus City*	*Class-I* *City/Town* *and others*
*Minimum and Maximum* *values of EC (Capital Cost*	Min. 1000 Max. 10000	Min. 500 Max. 5000	Min. 100 Max. 1000
*Component) recommended*
*by the Committee(Lacs Rs.)*
*Minimum and Maximum* *values of EC (O&M Cost*	Min. 1.0 Max. 10.0	Min. 0.5 Max. 5.0	Min. 0.1 Max. 1.0
*Component) recommended* *by the Committee (Lacs* *Rs./day)*				”

¶562

Para 3.3 deals with the method of determining environmental compensation for damage/untreated/partially treated sewage by concerned individual/authority. Under this head, CPCB has considered that for population above 1 lakh, requirement of water supply, would be minimum 150 to 200 lpcd and 85% whereof would result in sewage generation. It takes capital cost for 1 MLD STP ranges from Rs.0.63 Crores to Rs.3 Crores and O & M cost around Rs.30,000 per month. Consequently, it suggested to assume capital cost for STPs as Rs. 1.75 crores/MLD (marginal average cost). Expected cost for conveyance system is assumed as Rs. 5.55 Crore/MLD and annual O& M as 10% of combined capital coast. Based on the above assumptions, Committee has

¶563

¶564

recommended/suggested environmental compensation, to be levied on urban local bodies, by applying formula and here CPCB has suggested two formulas and any of them may be adopted.

¶565

“ EC= Capital Cost Factor × [Marginal Average Capital Cost for Treatment Facility × (Total Generation-Installed Capacity) + Marginal Average Capital Cost for Conveyance Facility × ( Total Generation -Operational Capacity)] + O&M Cost Factor x Marginal Average O&M Cost × (Total Generation- Operational Capacity) × No. of Days for which facility was not available + Environmental Externality × No. of Days for which facility was not available

¶566

Alternatively;

¶567

EC (Lacs Rs.) = [17.5(Total Sewage Generation – Installed Treatment Capacity) + 55.5(Total Sewage GenerationOperational Capacity)] + 0.2(Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity) × N + Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality × (Total Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity) × N

¶568

Where; N= Number of days from the date of direction of CPCB/SPCB/PCC till the required capacity systems are provided by the concerned authority

¶569

Quantity of Sewage is in MLD”

¶570

These recommendations by CPCB have not been given in the form of a binding statutory provision. Even otherwise, we find that these are only broad suggestions, ignore several relevant aspects which have to be considered while determining environmental compensation in a given case, therefore, cannot be taken as readymade application to all situations for determining of environmental compensation. Moreover, on some aspects there is no suggestion, but it is deferred.

¶571

We also find that some crucial relevant aspects requiring application of ‘Polluter Pays’, have not been considered in the above suggestions. CPCB has failed to consider that the purpose of

¶572

¶573

determination/computation/assessment of environmental compensation and levy thereof, involve various factors like (i) cost of damage to environment, (ii) cost needed for restoration/remediation of damage caused to environment, (iii) element of deterrent/provincial, (iv) liability arising for violation of statuary mandatory law relating to environment namely requirement of consent, EC and NOC etc. It is not mere cost of item or subject but computation of something which situation has arisen by an act of proponents due to violation of environmental law causing damage to environment. The loss and its remedy involve complex of components.

¶574

Moreover, we find that substantial aspects have been taken care in the mechanism laid down by RSPCB and the same are uniformly applicable in the State of Rajasthan, therefore, there is no reason not to follow the same.

¶575

The elements of nature like air, water, light and soil in materialistic manner may not be priced appropriately and adequately. Most of the time, whenever price is determined, it may be extremely low or highly exorbitant meaning thereby disproportionate. Still, since some of the assets of nature are marketable, on that basis price may be determined but when such elements are damaged or degraded, restoration thereof, in effect is priceless. Many a times, it may be almost impracticable and improbable to recover and remediate damaged environment to its position as it was. Moreover, its cost might be very high. It also cannot be doubted that once there is a pollution or damage to environment, it would affect adversely not only the environment but also inhabitants and all biological organisms. Damage is there, only degree may differ whether to the

¶576

¶577

environment or to the inhabitants and other organisms. To find out simultaneously degree of damage and to ascertain the same in many cases may not be possible or practicable with mathematical precision. For example, a polluted air causes respiratory diseases but the people do not get infected and starts reflection of the disease immediately but it takes some time. The time taken in reflection of injury on the person or body also differs from person to person depending upon his immunity and other health conditions. In some cases, damage to environment i.e., air pollution may be fatal to a person who already has respiratory problem. For some a minor inconvenience, minor injury to others, and some may not suffer to the extent of showing symptoms of any diseases at all. When we talk of environmental compensation for causing degradation to environment and for its restoration or remediation, it is not a formal or casual or symbolic amount which is required to be levied upon the violator. It is substantive and adequate amount which must be levied for restoration of environment. CPCB in determining values of fixed quotients and rupees etc., has been very lenient as if only symbolically violator is to be held liable and it must pay a petty amount.

¶578

Statutory Regulators must realize that the amount is needed for remediation and restoration of damaged environment; enough to be deterrent, to provide adequate compensation where inhabitants are affected adversely and where violator has proceeded in violation of environmental laws relating to consents, clearances, permissions etc., to penalize him for such violation to prove to be a deterrent to him and others. Statutory Regulators should consider that environmental compensation is not a kind of fee which may result in profiteering to violators and after adjusting a nominal amount of environmental compensation, a violator

¶579

¶580

may find it profitable to continue with such violations. The objective of environmental compensation is that not only the loss and damage already caused, is made to recover and restore but also in future, the said violator may not repeat the kind of violation already committed and others also have a fear of not doing the same else similar liability may be enforced upon them. Unless amount of compensation is more than maximum permissible profit arising from violation, the purpose of environmental compensation would always stand defeated.

¶581

Loss caused to surroundings of the environment, may also include flora-fauna and human beings.

¶582

It is in this backdrop that in various matters when the issues were considered by Courts and Tribunal and found necessary to impose environmental compensation upon Proponent/Violator of environmental laws, they have followed different mechanisms. Sometimes, Committee’s reports confirming violations have been referred but for quantum of compensation, directions have been issued in different ways. In some cases, CPCB Guidelines have been applied while in many other, project cost has been made basis and, in some matters, other modes of computation have been applied.

¶583

CPCB Guidelines have taken care of industries and municipal bodies. Its application in all cases irrespective of other relevant consideration may prove to be disastrous. Individuals, charitable, social or religious bodies, public sector and government establishments etc., may, in given circumstances justify a different approach. Further, there may be cases attracting aggravating factors or mitigating factors, for example in national emergency some activity got performed violating

¶584

¶585

environmental norms or a proponent is resilient to any advice to adhere law to protect environment and so on.

¶586

Quantum of environmental compensation should have nexus with State’s efforts for protection and preservation of environment and control of pollution. Compensation regime must be a deterrent to violators and incentivize eco-friendly proponents. No one should get profited by violating environmental laws and community should also not suffer for violation of environmental norms by defaulting proponents. There is no reason, if beside the aspects noticed above, the computation process also incorporates the elements of inflation, quality of life, and economic prosperity.

¶587

In the context of “violation of disposal of Bio-Medical Waste” and “Non-compliance of Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016” and determination of environmental compensation for such violations,

¶588

Tribunal in OA No. 710/2017, Shailesh Singh vs. Sheela Hospital & Trauma Centre, Shahjahanpur & Others and other connected matters, vide order dated 15.07.2019, accepted report of CPCB, and said:

¶589

“10. The compensation regime suggested by the CPCB may be adopted. It will be open to the State PCBs/PCCs to adopt a higher scale of compensation, having regard to the problems faced in such States/UTs.

¶590

11. It is made clear that if even after two months the States/UTs are found to be non-compliant, the compensation will be liable to be recovered from the said States/UTs at the rate of Rs. 1 Crore per month till the non-compliance continues.”

¶591

The above recommendations i.e. in para 10, Tribunal said “ compensation regime suggested by the CPCB may be adopted. It will be open to the State PCBs/PCCs to adopt a higher scale of

¶592

¶593

compensation, having regard to the problems faced in such

¶594

States/UTs ”.

¶595

In respect of solid waste, sewage effluent, ground water extraction etc., Tribunal in OA No. 593/2017, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and another vs. Union of India and others , vide order dated 28.08.2019 has said in para 16, that as regards environmental compensation regime fixed vide CPCB guidelines for industrial units, GRAP, solid waste, sewage and ground water is accepted as an interim measure. Tribunal further observed that recovery of compensation on ‘Polluter Pays’ principle is a part of enforcement strategy but not a substitute for compliance. It directed all States/UTs to enforce compensation regime latest w.e.f. 01.04.2020 and made it clear that it is not condoning any past violations. Tribunal directed to enforce recovery of compensation from 01.04.2020 from the defaulting local bodies failing which the concerned States/UTs themselves must pay the requisite amount of compensation.

¶596

In some cases, compensation has been awarded by Tribunal on lump sum basis without referring to any methodology. For example: (i) in Ajay Kumar Negi vs Union of India, OA No. 183/2013 , Rs.5 Crores was imposed. (ii) In Naim Shariff vs M/s Das Offshore OA No. 15(THC) of 2016 , Rs.25 Crores was imposed (iii) Hazira Macchimar Samiti vs. Union of India , Rs. 25 Crores was imposed.

¶597

In Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Others, (2014) 6 SCC 590 , Supreme Court relied on Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others, (2013) 8 SCC 209 and held that ten per cent of the sale price of iron ore during e-auction should be taken as compensation. To arrive at the above view, Court observed that this was

¶598

¶599

an appropriate compensation given that mining could not completely stopped due to its contribution towards employment and revenue generation for the State. Further, Court directed to create a special purpose vehicle, i.e., “Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund” for depositing above directed compensation and utilization of above fund for remediation of damage to environment.

¶600

In Goel Ganga Developers vs Union of India and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 257 , Tribunal imposed Rs.195 Crores compensation since construction project was executed without EC. Supreme Court made it Rs.100 Crores or 10% of project cost whichever is higher . Supreme Court also upheld Rs. 5 Crores imposed by Tribunal vide order dated 27.09.2016. Thus, total amount exceeded even 10% of project cost.

¶601

98. In Mantri Techzone Private Limited vs. Forward Foundation &

¶602

Others, (2019) 18 SCC 494 , Supreme Court affirmed imposition of environmental compensation by Tribunal, considering cost of the project, where there was violation regarding EC/consent and proponent proceeded with construction activities violating provisions relating to EC/Consent. Tribunal determined environmental compensation at 5% and 3% of project cost of two builders. 5% of project cost was imposed where PP had raised illegal constructions while 3% was imposed where actual construction activity was not undertaken by PP and only preparatory steps were taken including excavation and deposition of huge earth by creating a hillock. Besides, Tribunal also directed for demolition and removal of debris from natural drain at the cost of PP.

¶603

On the issue of assessment of compensation for damage to environment in the matter of illegal mining, recently Supreme Court in

¶604

¶605

Bajri Lease LOI holders Welfare Society vs. State of Rajasthan and

¶606

others, SLP (Civil) No. 10584 of 2019 (order dated 11.11.2021) has said that compensation/penalty to be paid by those indulging in illegal sand mining cannot be restricted to be value of illegally mined minerals. The cost of restoration of environment as well as the cost of ecological services should be part of compensation. ‘Polluter Pays’ principle as interpreted by this Court means that absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate victims of pollution but also cost of restoring environmental degradation. Remediation of damaged environment is part of the process of “sustainable development” and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.

¶607

So far as State of Rajasthan is concerned, fortunately, we find that here RSPCB has laid down standard operating procedure laying down certain factors to be applied for computation of environmental compensation. Various aspects have been considered in details and in absence of anything to point out that the said standard procedure prescribed by RSPCB is per se erroneous or contrary to law, we find no reason not to apply the same in the present case so that in State of Rajasthan a uniform method of computation of environmental compensation may be applied.

¶608

We make it clear that in cases where there is any doubt about applicability of the above standards procedure for computation of environmental compensation, the principles laid down by Supreme Court to compute environmental compensation shall be followed.

¶609

¶610

102. The liability of JDA to pay environmental compensation, in our

¶611

view, cannot be doubted in view of our findings recorded above that it is continuously discharging sewage water not meeting parameters in the river. We, accordingly, hold that JDA is violating environmental laws, committing a clear defiance and contravention of the mandate of Section 24 of Water Act 1974, causing pollution and, therefore, is liable to pay environmental compensation.

¶612

Now, coming to the question of quantum of environmental compensation and its methodology, we find that a uniform mechanism has been prescribed by RSPCB, taking various factors into consideration and this mechanism, we have already referred to in details above. When certain Guidelines and norms for computation of environmental compensation have already been laid down by a Statutory Body, the same must be applied and observed instead of taking a different value, which is not based on any uniform principle of Guidelines.

¶613

Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal is virtually like an expert commission appointed by Tribunal referable to Order 26 Rule 10A Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ ).

¶614

The report submitted by such committee/joint committee constituted by Tribunal is more in the nature of report submitted by the commission appointed under the provision of Order 26, CPC. Rule 10A of Order 26 CPC talks of Commission appointed by Court for scientific investigation.

¶615

Rule 9 Order 26 CPC 1908 says that Court may issue a Commission when it requires local investigation for the purpose of elucidating any

¶616

¶617

matter in dispute and direct such Commission to make such investigation and report to the Court.

¶618

Rule 10 provides procedure and Rule 10A deals with Commission appointed for investigation when such aspect is involved making Rule 10 applicable for the purpose of procedure.

¶619

Report of Commission can be objected by the parties to the litigation appearing before Court and it is open to the Court to reject or accept or partly accept the Commissioner’s Report. Status of Commissioner’s report is that of an evidence in the litigation when accepted by Court. Court can also issue a fresh or further Commission for enquiry when it is not satisfied with the earlier Commission report.

¶620

109. In State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-

¶621

Hasao District Committee & Ors., (2019) 8 SCC 177 , in para 195.14, Supreme Court has also referred to Order 26 Rule 10-A of Civil Procedure Code, observing that a court can appoint a commission for scientific investigation. The power which can be exercised by a court under Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC 1908 can be exercised by the Tribunal. However, while considering the power of Tribunal to constitute Committees for obtaining factual report, Supreme Court has said that Tribunal while asking an Expert to give report is not confined to the four corners of Rule 10-A and its jurisdiction is not shackled by strict terms of Order 26 Rule 10-A by virtue of Section 19(1) of NGT Act, 2010. Para 195.14 reads as under:

¶622

“ 195.14. Under Order 26 Rule 10-A of the Civil Procedure Code, a court can appoint a commission for scientific investigation. The power which can be exercised by a court under Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC can very well be exercised by the NGT also. The NGT while asking expert to give a report is not confined to the four corners of Rule 10-A and its jurisdiction is not shackled by

¶623

¶624

strict terms of Order 21 Rule 10-A by virtue of Section 19(1) of the NGT Act. ”

¶625

In Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 120, in Civil Appeal No. 1046/2019 decided on 21.01.2022, Supreme Court examined the status of Committee appointed by Courts/Tribunals and said that such Committees are set up to assist Tribunal with technical expertise in a given area, and their reports are, subject to judicially observed restraints, open to judicial review before Courts when decisions are taken solely based upon them. Supreme Court also said that precedents of Supreme Court unanimously note that Courts should be circumspect in rejecting the opinion of the Committees appointed by it, unless they find their decision to be manifestly arbitrary or mala-fide.

¶626

These Committees are set up because the fact-finding exercise in many matters can be complex, technical and time-consuming, and may often require the Committees to conduct field visits. These Committees are set up with specific terms of reference outlining their mandate, and their reports have to conform to the mandate. Once these Committees submit their final reports to the Court/Tribunal, it is open to the parties to object to them, which is then adjudicated upon. The role of these Expert Committees does not substitute the adjudicatory role of the Court or Tribunal. The role of an Expert Committee appointed by an adjudicatory forum is only to assist it in the exercise of adjudicatory functions by providing them better data and factual clarity, which is also open to challenge by all concerned parties.

¶627

¶628

Expert Committees may be appointed to assist NGT in the performance of its task and as an adjunct to its fact-finding role. But adjudication under the statute is entrusted to NGT and cannot be delegated to administrative authorities. Adjudicatory functions assigned to Courts and Tribunals cannot be hived off to Administrative Committees.

¶629

An Expert Committee may be able to assist NGT, for instance, by carrying out a fact-finding exercise, but the adjudication has to be by NGT. This is not a delegable function.

¶630

The above judgment has been referred to and followed recently in

¶631

Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station vs. Ashwani Kumar Dubey

¶632

& Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3856/2022 and other connected Appeals decided vide judgment dated 05.07.2023.

¶633

Thus, the report of a Committee/Joint Committee appointed by Tribunal by itself is not binding but it becomes a piece of evidence only when the report is accepted by the Court/Tribunal which has appointed it. If the entire report is not accepted then the extent to which report is accepted becomes a piece of evidence and can be considered by Court/Tribunal in recording its findings on the respective issues.

¶634

Joint Committee, thus, is not supposed to find out its own principle of determination of statutory computation of environmental compensation particularly in contravention of what has already been laid down by a Statutory Body i.e., RSPCB. Joint Committee while computing environmental compensation ought to have followed the Guidelines laid down by RSPCB and there was no reason for the Joint Committee to ignore the same. In our view, it would thus be appropriate to follow and rely the

¶635

¶636

Guidelines laid down by RSPCB for the purpose of computation of environmental compensation since it considers various aspects in detail and is applicable uniformly on all case of similar nature particularly in absence of any apparent flaw pointed out therein by Learned counsel appearing for JDA or anyone else.

¶637

We, therefore, hold that computation made by RSPCB is acceptable and should be accepted and JDA must be required to pay environmental compensation as per the computation made by RPSCB.

¶638

In the circumstances, Joint Committee Report is partly accepted. With respect to the quantum of environmental compensation, we hold that computation made by RSPCB shall be followed and shall be complied with by JDA.

¶639

We, accordingly hold that for the period of violation for 828 days i.e., from 27.07.2021 to 01.11.2023, JDA is liable to pay an interim environmental compensation of Rs.3,82,05,000/-. We also direct that the amount which JDA has already paid i.e., Rs.33,75,000/- shall be deducted and the remaining amount shall be paid by JDA within three months with RSPCB.

¶640

District Magistrate, Jaipur shall transfer the amount of interim environmental compensation i.e., Rs.33,75,000/- deposited by JDA to RSPCB within two months.

¶641

RSPCB is further directed to compute interim environmental compensation for the period subsequent to 01.11.2023, since violation is continuing, on monthly basis and JDA shall pay the same within 15 days of the demand raised by RSPCB till JDA comply with the environmental

¶642

¶643

laws and norms and stops discharging polluting material on the land, river or stream and stops violation of Section 24 of Water Act 1974.

¶644

We also find that violation of Section 24 of Water Act 1974 is an offence under Sections 43. Section 47 provides, if offence has been committed by a company, the person responsible for its day-to-day management shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and if the violator is the Government department, Section 48 provides that head of the department shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence.

¶645

In Noorulla Khan vs. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board & Anr., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 601, Supreme Court while referring to Karnataka State Pollution Control Board vs. B. Heera Naik and Others, (2020) 16 SCC 298 said that in the context of Section 48 of Water Act 1974, Commissioner of Municipal Corporation or Chief Officers of Municipal Councils may not strictly be called “heads of the departments” but such officials would still come under the provisions of Section 47 of Water Act 1974. The law laid down in Karnataka State Pollution Control Board vs. B. Heera Naik (supra) was summarized in para 11 of judgment in Noorulla Khan (supra), as under:

¶646

“ 11. What emerges from these decisions of this Court is:

¶647

i. If the violation of the provisions of the Water Act was at the hands of a Department, subject to the satisfaction of the requirements under Section 48 of the Water Act, “the Head of the Department” would be deemed to be guilty. This would of course be subject to the defences which are available to him to establish whether the offence in question was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

¶648

ii. By virtue of the decision of this Court in V.C. Chinnappa Goudar (Supra), because of deeming fiction under Section 48 of the Water Act, the protection under Section 197 of the Code would not be available and the matter ought to

¶649

¶650

be considered de hors such protection.

¶651

iii. If the concerned public servant happens to be a Chief Officer or Commissioner of a Municipal Council or Town Panchayat, he cannot strictly be called “the Head of the Department of the Government”. Therefore, in terms of decision of this Court in B. Heera Naik (Supra), the matter would not come under Section 48 of the Water Act. But the matter would come directly under Section 47 of the Water Act. According to said decision, even in such cases, the deeming fiction available under Section 47 of the Water Act would dis-entitle the public servant from the protection under Section 197 of the Code.

¶652

iv. If the offenders are other than public servants or where the principal offenders are corporate entities in private sectors, the question of protection under Section 197 would not arise.”

¶653

We may also observe that cognizance can be taken by Magistrate, of offence, without insisting for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. since Supreme Court in V.C. Chinnappa Goudar vs. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board & Anr., (2015) 14 SCC 535 and Noorulla Khan (supra) has held that Section 197 is not attracted for offences when prosecution is initiated under Water Act 1974 against the public servants with reference to Sections 47 and 48 of Water Act 1974.

¶654

JDA cannot claim any immunity from punitive action when it is apparently violating environmental laws and committing offence under Section 43 of Water Act 1974. RSPCB, therefore, must also take appropriate punitive action by initiating appropriate punitive proceedings in accordance with law for the offence being committed by the concerned authorities of JDA including JDA, within three months and submit a Compliance Report.

¶655

In view of the above discussion, we dispose of this OA, MA No. 03/2022 and all pending applications, if any, with the following directions:

¶656

¶657

(i) JDA is liable to pay interim environmental compensation of Rs.3,82,05,000/- for the period of violation of 828 days i.e., from 27.07.2021 to 01.11.2023.

¶658

(ii) After deducting the sum of Rs.33,75,000/-, which has already been paid by JDA, the remaining amount of interim environmental compensation of Rs.3,48,30,000/(Rs.3,82,05,000-Rs.33,75,000) shall be paid by JDA within three months from today by depositing with RSPCB.

¶659

(iii) District Magistrate, Jaipur is directed to transfer the amount of interim environmental compensation of Rs.33,75,000/deposited by JDA to RSPCB within two months.

¶660

(iv) RSPCB is further directed to compute interim environmental compensation for the period subsequent to 01.11.2023, on monthly basis, and JDA shall pay the same within 15 days of the demand raised by RSPCB till JDA complies with the environmental laws and norms and stops discharge of noncompliant sewage in violation of section 24 of Water Act 1974.

¶661

(v) RSPCB is directed to take appropriate punitive action by initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for the offence being committed by the concerned authorities of JDA including JDA, within three months and submit a Compliance Report.

¶662

(vi) The amount of environmental compensation deposited by JDA shall be utilised for remediation/rejuvenation/restoration of

¶663

¶664

damaged environment including polluted water bodies/river water in accordance with a remediation plan which shall be prepared by a Joint Committee comprising CPCB, RSPCB, Collector, Jaipur and RO, MoEF&CC within two months from today. CPCB shall be nodal agency for co-ordination and compliance. The remediation plan shall be executed within six months from the date of its preparation. A Compliance Report shall be filed by CPCB after expiry of above period with Registrar General of this Tribunal.

¶665

(vii) We also make it clear that after receipt of Compliance Report(s) by concerned authorities if any further order is required in the matter, the Registrar General shall place the Report(s) before the Bench.

¶666

Copy of this judgment be forwarded to RSPCB, JDA, CPCB and District Magistrate, Jaipur by e-mail for compliance.

¶667

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIPERSON

¶668

SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶669

SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶670

DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER April 08, 2024 Original Application No. 80/2021(CZ) R

¶671

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 3/2022 in Original Application No. 80/2021 of Captain Satyender Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary Forest & Environment Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 3/2022 in Original Application No. 80/2021 of Captain Satyender Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary Forest & Environment Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 6/2024 in Original Application No. 103/2024 of P Umapathy vs State of Tamilnadu Transport Department

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 3/2024 in Original Application No. 64/2023 of Shambhu Goswami vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 2/2024 in Original Application No. 59/2023 of Mahendra Kumar Saxena S/O Late Shri Shital Prasad Saxena vs State of Madhya Pradesh through District Collector

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 5/2024 in Original Application No. 24/2024 of Mawasia Tree Growers Cooperative Society Limited vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Enviornment and Forests

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 28/2023 in Original Application No. 215/2022 of Aashish Sardana vs Vatika Ltd.

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 40/2024 in Original Application No. 261/2023 of Sonu Kumar vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 41/2024 in Original Application No. 363/2023 of Meera Thakur vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 66/2023 in Original Application No. 168/2022 of Mudit Kumar vs

Captain Satyender Kumar Singh vs State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary Forest & Environment Department