Vinod Kumar Jain vs Secretary, Ministry Of ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 5782 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Date of decision: 26th September, 2012

+                               W.P.(C) No.1762/2012

       VINOD KUMAR JAIN                                 ..... Petitioner
                   Through:            Mr. Arvind Sah, Adv.

                                   Versus

    SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
    ENVIRONMENT & ORS.                        ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Nitin Saluja, Adv. for Mr. N.

Waziri, Adv. for R-1.

Mr. Suresh Tripathi, Adv. for DJB.

Mr. Biraja Mahapatra & Mr. D.K.

Pradhan, Advs. for R-4/DPCC.

CORAM :-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. This writ petition, filed in public interest, seeks direction to the

respondent No.1 Ministry of Environment (MoE) and the respondent

No.2 Delhi Jal Board (DJB) to ensure that the treated sewage water

flowing into the water bodies conforms to the designated best use

standards and meets the Guidelines set up by the Central Pollution

Control Board (CPCB) (impleaded as respondent No.3), direction is also

sought against the DJB to regularly monitor the flow of treated water

from the various Sewerage Treatment Plants (STPs) and to submit report

to this Court from time to time.

2. Notice of the writ petition was issued and counter affidavits have

been filed on behalf of MoE, DJB and the respondent No.4 Delhi

Pollution Control Committee (DPCC).

3. The petition pleads:

(i) that CPCB was constituted under the Water (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to promote cleanliness of

streams and wells in different areas of the States and for

which purpose it lays down standards for a stream or wells,

collects and compiles data relating to water pollution and

devises measures for prevention and control of pollution and

relating to disposal of sewage and sewage effluents;

(ii) that CPCB has carried out sample testing of the STPs in

Delhi and has also fixed the best designated use standards

for streams;

(iii) that the responsibility of maintaining the standards fixed by

respondent No.3 CPCB is of the respondent No.2 DJB;

(iv) that the STPs are in abysmal state of inefficiency and

inadequacy as is evident from the colour and foul smell that

emanates from the treated water which is discharged into the

water bodies and which is unfit to support any plant, animal

or marine life or even for irrigation;

(v) that the report of CPCB of the year 2003 gives details of

inadequacies of STPs to treat sewage, under-utilization of

STPs etc.;

(vi) that of 3267 million liters of sewage generated everyday,

capacity exists only for treating 2330 million liters per day

and actual treatment is only of about 1478 million liters per

day;

(vii) Master Plan of Delhi 2021 has also adopted the standards

laid down by respondent No.3 CPCB;

(viii) that the purity of water is determined inter alia by its

capacity to hold Oxygen and the Biochemical Oxygen

Demand, pH measurement, Fecal Coliform etc.;

(ix) that in order to reuse the treated sewage water, it is

imperative that the STPs should be efficient enough;

(x) that the report of CPCB of the year 2003 found the treated

sewage water to be much below the designated best use

standards;

(xi) that the STPs currently in operation are not even designed to

achieve the standards laid down;

(xii) that the treated sewage water is not fit for revitalization even

for the water bodies where it is emptied;

(xiii) that the technology of STPs is outdated;

(xiv) that the STPs are run by persons who do not have knowledge

and experience of operation thereof;

(xv) comparison is drawn with STPs in use in Singapore, where

30% of the daily water requirement is met from treated water

from the STPs; and

(xvi) owing to insufficiency and inefficient treatment, the water

bodies are drying up.

4. MoE in its counter affidavit has stated that STPs are being operated

by respondent No.2 DJB and monitored for treated waste water quality by

the DPCC.

5. DJB in its counter affidavit has pleaded that the treated effluent

may be used for all non-potable purpose i.e. irrigation, horticulture,

washing, cooling and industrial use; that the treatment depends on the

intended use of the treated effluent; that for enhancing the quality

standard of treated effluent, the cost of treating sewage becomes

expensive exponentially; that however to avoid pollution of ground water

and harm to plants, animals and aqua life, it is not advisable to recharge

ground water or water bodies with treated sewage because of the

standards maintained of the STPs; the treated effluent is discharged into

flowing water i.e. drains / rivers so that due to self natural process, the

treated effluent further improves its quality - that is why discharging

treated effluent in water bodies like ponds, lakes etc. is never

recommended; that the Supreme Court has already taken up the matter in

W.P.(C) No.725/1994 and DJB has submitted its Action Plan for

improving the quality of river Yamuna through the project of "Laying of

Interceptor Sewer along three major drains for abatement of Pollution in

river Yamuna" and which work is to be completed by the year 2014 and

which will ensure that all untreated sewage flowing into the natural

stream will be intercepted and conveyed to the nearest STPs for proper

treatment. DJB has however admitted that the total sewage generated is

680 mega gallon per day while the treatment capacity is only of 513.4

mega gallon per day, to be increased to 618.4 mega gallon per day by

December, 2012 and 730.4 mega gallon per day by the year 2014. It is

stated that the conditions of Singapore cannot be compared with Delhi.

Along with the counter affidavit, analysis reports for the different months

of the year 2012 have been filed and which are stated to be as per the

prescribed standards.

6. We have considered the matter. The reliefs claimed in the writ

petition are threefold. Firstly, that the treated sewage flowing into the

water bodies conforms to the standards prescribed therefor; secondly, for

the STPs to meet the Guidelines set up by CPCB and lastly for

monitoring of the STPs.

7. As far as the last of the three reliefs is concerned, DPCC has

admitted that it is continuously monitoring the 24 STPs. Vis-à-vis the

second relief, though the petitioner on the basis of the reports of the year

2003 has contended that the STPs do not meet the prescribed standards

but DPCC on the basis of the reports of the year 2012 has shown the

STPs to be compliant therewith. DPCC in its counter affidavit has further

assured to continue monitoring the STPs in future also.

8. That brings us to the first of the aforesaid reliefs. The

apprehension of the petitioner is that the treated sewage water flowing

into the water bodies does not conform to the prescribed standards.

However DJB in its counter affidavit has made a distinction between

water bodies as ponds and lakes on the one hand and a river on the other

hand and pleaded that while discharge of treated sewage into river

Yamuna is seized of by the Supreme Court, treated sewage water is not

prescribed to flow into the water bodies as ponds and lakes.

9. The Supreme Court being seized of the matter qua discharge of

treated sewage into river Yamuna, it is not for this Court to entertain the

petition qua the same. As far as the discharge of treated sewage into

other water bodies is concerned, as aforesaid, it is the stand of DJB that it

is not advisable to so discharge treated sewage into such water bodies. It

is rather further stated that wherever treated sewage water is found to be

flowing into the water bodies as ponds and lakes, complaint thereof is

made.

10. In view of the said stand, qua the said relief, we dispose of the writ

petition with the following directions:

A. We direct the DPCC to, from time to time check / monitor

all the STPs to ensure functioning thereof as per prescribed

standards and upon finding any defect / deficiency therein or

upon finding treated sewage therefrom to be not conforming

to prescribed standards, immediately bring the same to

notice of DJB.

B. We direct DJB to operate the STPs as per prescribed

standards and to immediately upon receipt of any complaint

from DPCC or otherwise, rectify the defects.

C. We direct DPCC as well as DJB to ensure that treated

sewage from STPs is not discharged into water bodies as

lakes / ponds etc., unless the same is compliant with

prescribed standards.

No other directions are required in this petition, the same is

disposed of.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 „gsr‟