1. Irregularities in implementation of Ganga Action Plan and mercury pollution from industries causing health hazards. (Para 1 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2007 Supreme(SC) 1680
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., Mr. R.V. Raveendran and Mr. D.K. Jain, JJ.
M.C. Mehta - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.3727/1985.
Decided On : 20-02-2007
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties :- Mr. Krishan Mahajan, (A.C.), Advocate.
For the Petitioners:- Mr. M.C. Mehta, Petitioner-In-Person, Advocate.
For the Petitioners in W.P.(C)No.276/03:- Mr. Ashoka Kr. Thakur, Petitioner in person, Advocate.
For the Applicant :- Mr. Ajay K. Agrawal, UP Jal Nigam Ms. Alka Agrawal, Ms. Anamika Agrawal, Advocates.
For the Respondents:- Mr. T.S. Doabia, Advocate.
Min. of E & F & Min. of Rlys. :- Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Mr. R.C. Kathia, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Advocates.
For the State of Uttaranchal :- Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate.
For the Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Advocate.
For the State of UP :- Mr. S. Wasim A Qadri, Mr. Rajiv Dubey, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates.
For the CPCB :- Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Mr. Anis Suharawardy, Mr. Arvind Minocha, Mr. Amlan Kumar Ghosh, Mr. T.V. George, Mr. B.S. Banthia, Mr. P.K. Chakravarty, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Shashi B. Upadhyay, Mr. Debasis Mishra, Mr. Rattan K. Chaudhary, Mr. T. Anil Kumar, Mr. Manoj Swarup & Co., Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Mr. Virender Kr. Sawhney, Dr. Kailash Chand, Mr. Goodwill Indeevar, Mr. Sushil Kr.Jain, Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, Mr. Dinesh Kr.Garg, Mr. K.K. Mohan, Advocates.
For the State of Raj. :- Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Mr. Naveen Kr. Singh, Mr. Mukul Sood, Mr. Shashwat Gupta, Mr. D. Goburdhan, Mr. D.P. Mukherjee, Advocates.
For the State of Jharkhand :- Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mr. Gopal R. Jha, Mr. G.R. Pandey, Mr. Ratan K. Choudhari, Mr. Binod K. Upadhyay, Advocates.
For the State of W.B. :- Mr. Janaranjan Das, Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Ms. Anindita Gupta, Mr. M.N. Rao, Mr. D.P. Mukherjee, Ms. Nandini Sen, Advocates.
For the State of Bihar :- Mr. Gopal Singh, Mr. Anukul Raj, Mr. Ritu Raj Bishwas, Advocates.
For the W.B.P.C.B. :- Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Mr. S. Vallinayagam, Mr. S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Advocates.
For the UPPCB :- Mr. Pradeep Misra, (NP), Advocate.
For the NCT of Delhi :- Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
For the Appearing Parties :- Mr. Krishan Mahajan, (A.C.), Advocate.
For the Petitioners:- Mr. M.C. Mehta, Petitioner-In-Person, Advocate.
For the Petitioners in W.P.(C)No.276/03:- Mr. Ashoka Kr. Thakur, Petitioner in person, Advocate.
For the Applicant :- Mr. Ajay K. Agrawal, UP Jal Nigam Ms. Alka Agrawal, Ms. Anamika Agrawal, Advocates.
For the Respondents:- Mr. T.S. Doabia, Advocate.
Min. of E & F & Min. of Rlys. :- Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Mr. R.C. Kathia, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Advocates.
For the State of Uttaranchal :- Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate.
For the Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Advocate.
For the State of UP :- Mr. S. Wasim A Qadri, Mr. Rajiv Dubey, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates.
For the CPCB :- Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Mr. Anis Suharawardy, Mr. Arvind Minocha, Mr. Amlan Kumar Ghosh, Mr. T.V. George, Mr. B.S. Banthia, Mr. P.K. Chakravarty, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Shashi B. Upadhyay, Mr. Debasis Mishra, Mr. Rattan K. Chaudhary, Mr. T. Anil Kumar, Mr. Manoj Swarup & Co., Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Mr. Virender Kr. Sawhney, Dr. Kailash Chand, Mr. Goodwill Indeevar, Mr. Sushil Kr.Jain, Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, Mr. Dinesh Kr.Garg, Mr. K.K. Mohan, Advocates.
For the State of Raj. :- Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Mr. Naveen Kr. Singh, Mr. Mukul Sood, Mr. Shashwat Gupta, Mr. D. Goburdhan, Mr. D.P. Mukherjee, Advocates.
For the State of Jharkhand :- Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mr. Gopal R. Jha, Mr. G.R. Pandey, Mr. Ratan K. Choudhari, Mr. Binod K. Upadhyay, Advocates.
For the State of W.B. :- Mr. Janaranjan Das, Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Ms. Anindita Gupta, Mr. M.N. Rao, Mr. D.P. Mukherjee, Ms. Nandini Sen, Advocates.
For the State of Bihar :- Mr. Gopal Singh, Mr. Anukul Raj, Mr. Ritu Raj Bishwas, Advocates.
For the W.B.P.C.B. :- Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Mr. S. Vallinayagam, Mr. S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Advocates.
For the UPPCB :- Mr. Pradeep Misra, (NP), Advocate.
For the NCT of Delhi :- Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
The court emphasized accountability for the utilization of public funds in environmental schemes and mandated state pollution control boards to conduct scientific sampling and reporting to address hazardous industrial pollution affecting public health.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Law - Implementation of centrally funded river cleaning schemes - Fund utilization and accountability - The court noted significant irregularities in the utilization of public funds and delays in execution as highlighted in the report of the Auditor General. The Steering Committee and respective State governments are directed to provide detailed affidavits and utilization certificates to address these irregularities. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Environmental Pollution - Hazardous waste - Industrial mercury pollution - Public health hazards - Allegations were raised regarding large-scale mercury pollution from power, aluminum, chemical, and cement industries affecting drinking water and causing serious health hazards. The State Pollution Control Board is directed to conduct site visits, collect samples, and submit laboratory reports to the court to facilitate effective remedial measures. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
This matter involves the court's monitoring of a centrally funded scheme envisaged for cleaning river water. The Auditor General's report pointed out various irregularities and long delays in the execution, operation, and maintenance of the project. Furthermore, an interim application was filed alleging severe mercury pollution in an industrial area due to various power and chemical plants, leading to health hazards for the inhabitants and contamination of drinking water.
Findings of Court:
The court found it necessary for the Steering Committee to respond to the Auditor General's report on remedial measures. State governments are required to file affidavits regarding the expenditure of funds accompanied by utilization certificates. Regarding the allegations of industrial pollution, the court found it necessary for the State Pollution Control Board to conduct empirical testing and laboratory examination of samples from the affected areas.
Issues: The main issues were the accountability of state agencies in the utilization of funds for an environmental cleaning project and the necessity of scientific verification to address hazardous mercury pollution in an industrial zone.
Ratio Decidendi: State agencies are accountable for the proper utilization of public funds allocated for environmental restoration, and regulatory bodies must perform their statutory duty to monitor and scientifically analyze hazardous pollution levels when public health is at risk.
Result: Directions issued to the Steering Committee, State governments, and State Pollution Control Board; one writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Amicus curiae contended scheme not progressed well; petitioner alleged mercury pollution, board disputed high levels. (Para 1 , 5 )
3. Court noted CAG report irregularities, directed Steering Committee to respond, and ordered pollution board to test samples. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
4. Matters listed for further hearing; one petition withdrawn with liberty; another adjourned. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
5. What action was directed regarding the CAG report on the Ganga Action Plan?
The Steering Committee must examine the report, state remedial measures, and states must file affidavits on fund utilization. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. What steps were ordered concerning alleged mercury pollution in Singrauli?
The court ordered the U.P. Pollution Control Board to immediately visit, take samples, and submit laboratory reports. (Para 5 )
7. Can a petitioner withdraw a writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition?
Yes, the court may permit withdrawal with liberty, and the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Ganga Action Plan was envisaged whereby a 100% centrally funded scheme was put into action to clean the water of the Ganges.Huge amount was allotted to the States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Uttaranchal and Jharkhand and some work had been done. There is a Steering Committee headed by the Secretary of Ministry of Environment and Forests to monitor the implementation of the Ganga Action Plan and also to determine the manner of fund allocation to various agencies. We are told by Shri Krishan Mahajan, Amicus Curaie that the scheme has not progressed well.
2. The Controller and Auditor General in his report for the year ending March, 2000 has noticed series of irregularities in the implementation of the Ganga Action Plan. It is a detailed report by the C.A.G. pointing out the various irregularities in the matter of utilisation of public funds. The report also has noticed the long delay in the execution, operation and maintenance under the plan. The Steering Committee will look into the Report of the C.A.G. and shall give its response as to what remedial measures be taken in this regard. The States of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttaranchal and Jharkhand would also file their detailed affidavits as to the manner in which the funds were spent under the Plan.
3. They would also specifically give reasons accompanied by utilisation certificate from the respective agencies on the report of the C.A.G. so that further action would be taken in this matter by 23rd April, 2007.
4. List these matters on 24th April, 2007.
I.A. No. 343 in W.P.(C) No. 3727/85
5. In this interim application it is alleged that in the Singrauli Industrial Area in U.P., there are a large number of industries i.e. power plants, aluminium industries, chemcial industried and cement industries and industries relating to Hydro-Carbon etc.It is alleged that these industries cause large scale mercury pollution and the drinking water, all forms of agricultural operations are seriously affected by the same. It is alleged that the mercury content in the drinking water and edible substances are in high percentage and it causes serious health hazards to the inhabitants of the area. It is alleged that many persons are sick and unable to get medical aid. Neither Central Pollution Control Board nor the U.P. Pollution Control Board is bringing anything to check this alarming situation. The U.P. Pollution Control Board has filed an affidavit on October, 2000, where it has stated the mercury lever is not so high but we do not know what is the present situation. The officers of U.P. Pollution Control Board should immediately visit the places and take samples and send the same to laboratory examination. The details of such examination be furnished to this Court. The petitioner is also at liberty to file fresh details as to the level of mercury pollution and furnish report to this Court so that effective steps could be taken in this regard.
6. List on 24th April, 2007.
W.P.(C) No. 276/2003
7. Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. Permission granted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
I.A. No. 374 and 375 in R.P.(C) No. 792/97 in W.P.(C) No. 3727/85
8. Adjourned by four weeks.
