Indiscriminate concretization threatens environmental integrity; adherence to green guidelines is critical for groundwater recharge and biodiversity protection.

JUDGMENT

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

1. This Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) has been preferred by Vikrant Tongad and Dr. Supriya Mahajan. Both are residents of District Gautam Budh Nagar, State of Uttar Pradesh. It is alleged that there is huge damage to environment due to reckless, excessive and indiscriminate concretisation of road sides and roadberms, carried out by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘NOIDA’) in Sectors 28, 37, 47, 50, 55 and 62 and by Greater Noida Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘G NOIDA’) in Sectors Omega 1, Alpha and P3. The said authorities are also violating orders of Tribunal passed in OA 165/2013, Ashish Vashishtha vs. Union of India & Ors. and also, Government Order dated 23.03.2018 issued by State of UP and concurred by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as ‘MoEF&CC’) in Execution Application No. 34/2017 in OA 165/2013, Akash Vashishtha vs. Union of India & Ors. Act of these authorities is also in gross violation of judgment dated 10.11.2016 passed in OA 21/2014, Vardhaman Kaushik vs. Union of India & Ors. and dated 03.12.2020 passed in OA 283/2020, R. S. Virk vs. Central Pollution Control Board. The activities are also in complete transgression of Guidelines dated 21.07.2000, 03.09.2013 and 23.09.2013 of Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, besides, in contravention of Government Order dated April 2001 issued by State of UP.

2. Applicants have impleaded, besides State of UP; District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and two authorities i.e., NOIDA and G NOIDA, also MoEF&CC, District Ground Water Management Council, Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘DGWMC GB Nagar’) and certain Residents Welfare Associations namely, Arun Vihar Residents Welfare Association; Residents Welfare Association, Sector-50, Noida; Residents Welfare Association, Sector-47, Noida; Residents Welfare Association, Sector-55, Noida; and, Residents Welfare Association, Sector-62, Noida.

3. The facts stated in OA, in brief, are that applicant-1 is a resident of G NOIDA and a water and environmental conservationist, engaged in the work of environmental protection for last several years. He was also honoured by various authorities for his work on environmental protection. Applicant-2 is senior Consultant Dermatologist, practicing in National Capital Region (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCR’) for the last 20 years, and has written several articles on preservation of environment and ecology and co-founded a community citizens initiative called “Sustainable Alternatives and Awareness against Plastic and Household Waste (SAAPH)”.

4. Applicants have stated that for conservation of ground water recharge, State Government of UP earlier took a conscious decision while issuing Government Order dated April 2001 (annexure A-7 at page 121) and communicated the following decision to be executed and implemented by the concerned authorities:

English Translation by Tribunal:

“2. In this connection, I have been directed to say that at the time of formulation, development and construction of schemes for proper management of rain water harvesting and ground water, after due consideration by the Government, it has been decided to ensure the following arrangements:-

2.1 Action at the master plan/zonal plan level

Natural water reservoirs, ponds and lakes in urban areas should be identified and provisions should be made in the master plan/zonal development plan for their mandatory conservation and the land under these should not be proposed for any other use. Also, to effectively use the water reservoirs and ponds for rain water harvesting, provisions should be made to dispose the drainage of the surrounding area into these water reservoirs as far as possible, but the effluent from industrial areas should be mixed into them only after proper treatment.

2.2 Action at scheme/lay-out plan level

(i) In the layout p