Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 1390
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, CJI., A.K. Sikri, R. Banumathi, JJ.
M.C. Mehta - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
I.A. Nos. 366, 367, 368, 370, 371, 372 in I.A. No. 365 in I.A. No. 345, I.A. No. 369, 373, 374 In I.A. No. 366 In I.A. No. 365 In I.A. No. 345 in Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 13029 of 1985 with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 817 of 2015 with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of 2015 with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 2013 with Civil Appeal Diary No. 41690 of 2015 and I.A. Nos. 375, 376-377, 378-379, 380, 381, 382, 383-384 385-386 in I.A. No. 365 in I.A. No. 345
Decided On : 05-01-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), Ms. Aparajita Singh, Adv. (A.C.), Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Adv.(A.C.), Mr. Sidhartha Choudhary, Adv.(A.C.)., Mr. M.C. Mehta, Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jatin Zaveri, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Sinha, Adv. Mr. Neel Kamal Mishra, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Ms. Arti Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Adv. Mr. Harpreet Singh Sandhu, Adv. Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Ms. Pinky Anand,ASG Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv. Ms. K. Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Vivek Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Adv. Mr. Anil Grover, AAG Ms. Noopur Singhal, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mehra, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Das, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Reddy, Adv. Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Adv. Mr. S.Wasim A. Qadri, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Zaid Ali, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, AAG Mr. Gaurav Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Utkarsh Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, Adv. Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Adv. Mr. Sachin Mittal, Adv. Mr. Yoginder Hondoo, Adv. Ms. Kanika Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dudeja, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Chopra, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Lal Ramtiamma, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Advocate M/s. Corporate Law Group.
The court has the authority to issue directives for the diversion of heavy commercial traffic and the implementation of measures to reduce air pollution in the National Capital Region.
Headnote:
Air Pollution - Traffic Diversion - Environment Protection Act - [N.H.-1, N.H.-8, N.H.-2, N.H.-10, N.H.58, State Highway No.57] - The court directed the diversion of heavy commercial traffic from multiple highways to bypass Delhi, and also directed the setting up of way-bridges and the implementation of toll collection measures to reduce air pollution in the National Capital Region.
ORDER :
Heard.
2. By our order dated 16th December, 2015, we had issued several directions with a view to reducing the levels of air pollution within the National Capital Region. One of the said directions required the authorities to divert traffic entering from two entry points into Delhi, namely, Kundli border on N.H.-1 and Rajokri on N.H.-8. We had directed that heavy vehicular traffic on the said two highways that enters Delhi from Kundli border on N.H.-1 and Rajokri on N.H.-8, shall be diverted to bypass Delhi through such alternative routes as the transport/traffic departments of the governments concerned may stipulate. We are today told by Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing as amicus, that the said direction has been substantially complied with according to his instructions. Mr. Anil Grover, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana, also submits that the State of Haryana has taken appropriate steps in the above direction and has diverted traffic away from Delhi by prescribing alternative routes. Learned counsel, however, prays for some time to file a detailed status report as to the precise steps taken in that direction and also the extent of heavy commercial traffic diverted away from Delhi. He may do so within three weeks.
3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that vehicular traffic on N.H.-1 and N.H.-8 alone do not contribute to the problems of the capital region. They submit that heavy commercial traffic is also entering Delhi from several other entry points and directions. For instance, heavy commercial traffic is entering Delhi from N.H.-10 that connects Sampla and Bahadurgar at Tikri entry point. Similarly, heavy commercial traffic is entering Delhi from N.H.-2 and N.H.-58 which connect Palwal to Faridabad and Ghaziabad to Meerut respectively. Heavy commercial traffic running on State Highway no.57, connecting Ghaziabad to Bagpat, also enters Delhi at Mohan Nagar and Shahdra entry points. They submit that heavy commercial traffic from these three highways should also be diverted to bypass Delhi and that this Court could direct the State Governments of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to take appropriate steps for such diversion.
4. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing for Union of India, submits on instructions of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH) that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) shall take immediate and appropriate steps to ensure that no inconvenience is caused to those using such alternative routes.
5. In the circumstances and keeping in view the submissions made at the Bar, we direct that heavy commercial traffic from N.H.-2, N.H.-10, N.H.58 and from State Highway No.57 shall not be allowed to enter Delhi from the entry points mentioned above. Commercial vehicles that are Delhi bound shall however remain unaffected. We further direct that the State Governments and the NHAI shall take immediate steps for identifying and prescribing alternative routes for the heavy commercial traffic plying on the said highways with a view to bypassing Delhi. We will appreciate if the Central Government and NHAI lend a helping hand to the State Governments for making the diversion possible and taking immediate steps necessary for the convenience of those making use of the above highways.
6. We further direct that Environment Pollution Control Authority (EPCA), constituted under the Environment Protection Act, shall convene a meeting of officers from the State Governments concerned and the Government of India apart from the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities concerned to examine the feasibility of setting up of way-bridges at all such places as same as entry points for bringing the traffic into National Capital Region and the NCT of Delhi. The EPCA shall in consultation with the representatives of the Governments concerned examine whether such way-bridges have to be set up by the State Governments, the Union of India, the NHAI or the
