Suleman vs Union Of India & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10387 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 2369 of 2018 a/w CWP No. 1074 of 2019, CWPIL Nos. 32 & 42 of 2021, CWP No. 3334 of 2021 and CWPIL No. 4 of 2022 and CWP No. 3511 of 2022.

.

Reserved on: 22.7.2023

Date of decision : 27.7.2023.

    1.   CWP No. 2369 of 2018





         Suleman                                          ...Petitioner.
                           Versus
         Union of India & others                       ...Respondents





    2.   CWP No. 1074 of 2019
         Subhash Chand                                  ...Petitioner
                           Versus
         State of H.P. & others                         ...Respondents.

    3.   CWPIL No. 32 of 2021

         Court on its own motion                          ...Petitioner
                           Versus
         State of H.P. & others                        ...Respondents.



    4.   CWPIL No. 42 of 2021
         Court on its own motion                              ...Petitioner




                           Versus

Member Secretary H.P. State Environment Protection

And Pollution Control Board & others. ....Respondents

5. CWP No. 3334 of 2021

Saligram Attri ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents

6. CWPIL No. 4 of 2022 Vijay Kumar & others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others ....Respondents.

7. CWP No. 3511 of 2022

Avinash Chander ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ....Respondents.

.

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Present : Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Sr. Advocate, as

Amicus Curiae.

Mr. D. K. Khanna and Mr. Deven Khana, r Advocates, for the petitioner.

Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy solicitor

General of India, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma & Ms. Sharmila

Patial, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the respondents/State.

Mr. T. S. Chauhan, and Mr. Maan singh, Advocates, for respondent No.3.

Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No.6.

Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate, for M.C. Dalhousie and M.C. Sundernagar.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, for M.C. Palampur.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for M.C. Dharmshala.

.

Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate, for M.C.

Kullu, Manali and Nagar Panchayat, Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.

Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, Executive Engineer, H.P. Pollution Control Board and Mr. Rajinder Chauhan, Project Officer, Directorate of Urban Development.

CWP No. 1074 of 2019

Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate, for the

petitioner.

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma & Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Rajat

Chauhan, Law Officer, for the respondents/State.

Mr. K.S. Banyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Uday Singh banyal, Advocate, for

respondent No.3.

Mr. T.S. Chauhan, and Mr. Maan Singh,

Advocates, for respondent No.5.

Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent-HRTC.

CWPIL No. 32 of 2021

Mr. Neeraj Kumar Shashwat, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae.

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma & Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the

.

respondents/State.

Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

CWPIL No. 42 of 2021

Court on its own motion.

Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate, for the

interveners.

Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with

Mr. Ramakant Sharma & Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the

respondents/State.

CWP No. 3334 of 2021

Mr. Saurav Rattan, Advocate, for the

petitioner.

Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma & Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the respondents/State.

CWPIL No. 4 of 2022

Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate, for the petitioner.

.

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma & Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Rajat

Chauhan, Law Officer, for the respondents/State.

Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

r to CWP No. 3511 of 2022

Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma & Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the

respondents/State.

Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate, for

respondent No.3.

Ms. Divya Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge:

On 26.12.2022, this Court after having taken

detailed note of the relevant material before it, had issued the

directions as under:-

"Looking into the seriousness of these issues, let fresh status report(s) be filed by all the respondents through

their respective Project Officers on or before the next date of hearing. The Project Officer(s) of all the respondents is directed to coordinate with all the respondents and

.

thereafter file a collective affidavit touching upon all the

issues as have been noticed in this order."

2. On 6.4.2023, it was further noticed that not only the

citizens but even the municipal bodies were dumping waste in

rivers, streams, rivulets etc. It was observed that such practice

needs to be stopped forthwith and directions were issued

accordingly.

3. Another issue regarding door to door collection of

garbage in various towns of Himachal Pradesh, including

Shimla was also considered. It was further directed that solid

and wet waste would be collected separately after segregation

and thereafter transported separately by engaging specified

vehicles or compartmentalized vehicles for said purpose. It was

also directed that door to door garbage would be collected at

least thrice a week at such place where it was not being

collected on daily basis.

4. On 23.5.2023, this Court had passed the following

order:-

"It has been repeatedly noticed by the Court that the State Pollution Control Board, except show cause notices issued

under the various statutes of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, has failed to take any coercive action against the erring authorities/individuals. It is high time that the

.

Pollution Control Board takes some stern action, so as to

ensure that the menace of violation of the environmental laws is curbed. Let suggestions in this regard be filed on

or before the next date of hearing."

5. In compliance to aforesaid orders, various units of

HPPCB have filed their separate status reports. In addition,

various urban local bodies have also filed their respective status

reports/compliance affidavits.

6. We have gone through the compliance reports and

affidavits, as noticed above. We have also heard learned

counsel for the petitioners, learned Advocate General and

learned Deputy Solicitor General of India.

7. Perusal of contents of compliance affidavits and

status reports filed on behalf of HPPCD and urban local bodies

do not reveal due compliance of the orders and directions

passed by this Court from time to time. Not only this, the

provisions of Solid Waste Management Rules and Plastic Waste

Management Rules in particular and Environment Protection

Act in general appear to have been violated with impunity.

8. Various suggestions were made on behalf of the

petitioners in respect of need for effective complaint

.

mechanism, cleaning the streams and visible hill sides,

inadequacy of prescribed penalties/fines, inadequacy of

dumping/land-filled sites, need for effective implementation of

Extended Producers Responsibility (EPR) etc.

9. During the course of hearing of the matter, learned

Advocate General suggested the need for immediate inspection

of the facilities available with the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) in

the State, their use, effects and deficiencies, which will go a

long way in assisting this Court in passing effective and

purposeful directions in public interest. Learned Advocate

General volunteered to supply a list of volunteers for such

purpose and assured that the needful will be done within four

weeks and matter will be reported to this Court.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned Deputy Solicitor General of India along with other stake

holders present in the Court welcomed the suggestion made by

learned Advocate General. Keeping in view the issues of prime

public interest involved herein, we do not see any reason in

disallowing such inspection to be carried by the volunteers, as

suggested by learned Advocate General.

.

11. Learned Advocate General has provided a list of

volunteers, which will undertake the exercise of inspection, as

envisaged by learned Advocate General, which is as under:-

Sr. District Name of Volunteers No.

1. Kangra Mr. Naresh Kaul, Mr. Mukul Sood,

Mr. Goldy and Mr. Sanjay Jaswal.

2. Hamirpur Mr. Vinod Thakur, Sunny Dhatwalia and Mr. Tarun K.

Sharma.

r Bilaspur Mr. Mohit Thakur and Mr. Malay

Kaushal.

4. Una Mr. Balram Sharma, Mr. Sunny Modgil & Mr. Dheeraj Vashishat.

5. Sirmour Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, & Mr.

Jyotirmay Bhatt.

               6.    Kullu      Mr. Maan Singh.

               7.    Shimla     Mr. Devanand Sharma, Ms. Aruna

Chauhan, MR. Dalip Kaith, Mr. Dugra Singh Kainthla, Mr.

Yashveer Singh Rathore.

8. Solan Mr. Pratap Singh Goverdhan, Mr. Anirudh Sharma & Mr. Aditya

Kaushal.

               9.    Mandi      Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Mr.
                                Vinod     Thakur,     Mr.   Anil
                                Chaudhary & Mr. Varun Rana.
               10.   Chamba     Mr. Sat Parkash & Mr. Nimish
                                Gupta.
               11.   Bharyal    Mr. Kush Sharma.
                     Plant

12. In view of the above development, we adjourn the

hearing of the matter to 11.9.2023 to enable the above listed

.

volunteers to complete the entire exercise of inspection of

respective local bodies vis-à-vis the facilities for solid waste and

plastic waste management, scientific disposal of the waste,

proper segregation, pollution of water streams, rivers, rivulets

or any other water bodies, as also the process of

implementation of the provisions of Environment Protection Act

and relevant rules framed thereunder.

r Reports prepared by

the volunteers be positively placed on file of this case at least

one week prior to the date of hearing.

List on 11.9.2023.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge.

                                             (Satyen Vaidya)





    27th July, 2023                              Judge
          (kck)