23. Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the said Act has a bearing on the directions issued under S.5 of the said Act. The directions issued under S.5 are required to be in writing as provided under R. 4(1). By R.4 (3-a), a copy of the proposed direction is required to be served on the concerned person who is to be given opportunity of not less than 15 days from the date of service of a notice to file objections, if any, to the issue of the proposed direction. The Central Government is required to consider these objections and for reasons to be recorded, confirm, modify or decide not to issue the proposed direction as provided in R. 4(4). Then comes the material sub-rule 4(5) on which reliance is placed by the State Government for justifying the issuance of directions without affording an opportunity to file objections. Rule 4(5) reads as follows:-
“4(5). In a case where the Central Government is of the opinion that in view of the likelihood of a grave injury to the environment it is not expedient to provide an opportunity to file objections against the proposed direction, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, issue directions without providing such an opportunity.”
The requirement of giving opportunity to file objections against the proposed directions which can be issued under S. 5 of the Act can be dispensed with only when the Central Government is of the opinion that in view of the likelihood of a grave injury to the environment, it is not expedient to provide such opportunity. As noted above, the powers of the Central Government have been delegated to the State by Notification dt. 10-2-1988. The State Government in its deliberations on 3rd and 4th Oct., 1994 took into account the gravity of the situation and it was decided to issue directions as are contained in the impugned orders dt. 19th Oct., 1994 directing closure of these units. It was decided to take action without giving any show cause notice under R. 4(5) of the said Rules in view of the grave and serious pollution caused to the irrigation canal because of discharge of effluent by thirteen industries which had caused severe damage to the crops and fertile land and environment at large. The material on record clearly shows that the State Government was of the opinion that grave injury was being caused by discharge of such effluent into the irrigation canal resulting in severe damage to crops and fertile lands. The biochemical oxygen demand tests applied to these petitioners showed that the tolerance limits were exceeded. The Biochemical oxygen demand test is widely used to determine the pollutional strength of domestic and industrial wastes in terms of oxygen that they will require if discharged into natural water courses in which aerobic conditions exist. The test is one of the most important in stream-pollution-control activities. Similarly, chemical oxygen demand test is widely used for measuring pollutional strength of domestic and industrial wastes. This test allows measurement of waste in terms of the total quantity of oxygen required for oxidation to carbon-dioxide and water. The trade effluents which contained various characteristics in excess of tolerance limits would undoubtedly ruin the fertility of the soil of which they come to be released. The release of such trade effluents in Khari-cut canal which is meant for irrigation of lands obviously would result in damage to the crops and the fields to which the polluted water was being carried. When applied to a plant - soil system, oils and grease constituent of industrial wastes can affect seed germination or crop growth and yield. (See Design of Land Treatment Systems for Industrial Waste: Theory and Practice by Michasel Ray Overcash and Dhilaj Pal, 1979 Edition at page 200). There were several complaints received by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the concerned Department regarding the pollution caused due to release of untreated effluents in river Khari. This naturally called for immediate action, and the record shows that urgent action was overdue. Therefore, if the State Government became suddenly aware of its’ duties and took action for preventing further damage to the crops and the agricultural lands, it cannot be said that there was justification for such action because it was not taken earlier. The gravity of the situation was in the extent of damage which was resulting due to discharge of such effluents. The Government was fully empowered to dispense with the opportunity being given for filling objections against the proposed direction in such cases of grave injury to the environment. The provisions of R.4(5) are intended to safeguard the environment from any grave injury to it and in the present case it has been amply borne out that the release of the effluents by the petitioner units was resulting in pollution of the irrigation canal causing vast damage to the crops and the agricultural fields. This fact has been recorded in writing in the impugned orders dt. 19th October 1994. The petitioners did not operate effluent treatment to plant and could not be allowed to release untreated effluents resulting in damage to the fertile lands of Kheda District. The State Government was, therefore, fully justified in proceeding under R.4(5) of the said Rule while exercising its delegated powers for issuing direction under S.5 of the Act as in the impugned orders. These petitions are therefore without any substance and are rejected. Rule discharged in each of these matters with no order as to costs. Ad-interim stay granted in each petition stands vacated.
At this stage there is a request by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to extend the stay for a period of four weeks. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the magnitude of harm that would be caused to the environment if stay is extended, this request is rejected.
Pyarelal v. The State (Delhi Administration)
Air 1995 Supreme Court 1159
Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 1988, D/-18-1-1995
M. M. Punchhi and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.
(A) Wild Life (Protection) Act (53 of 1972), Ss. 44, 49 - Conviction under - Wild Life Inspector on information conducting search of premises of accused and found lion shaped trophies of chinkara skin meant for sale - Evidence establishing that accused was found in possession of trophies - Conviction, proper.
(B) Wild Life (Protection) Act (53 of 1972), S. 51 – Sentence - Accused convicted for possession of trophies of chinkara skin without license - No evidence whatsoever when accused came into possession - Proviso to S. 51 providing minimum sentence of six months' imprisonment, not attracted - Accused already in jail for about tow months - Sentence of imprisonment of six months’ - Sentence of imprisonment of six months' R.I. reduced to period already undergone.
(Paras 3, 4) JudgEment: - The appellant who has been found guilty under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was owner of M/s. Haryana Novelty Emporium, Delhi. On 1-9-1979, the Wild Life Inspector, PW-1 on information conducted a search of the premises and found lion shaped trophies of Chinkara skins meant for sale. A complaint was lodged stating that the provision of Sections 44 and 49 punishable under Section 51 have been contravened. Plea of the accused has been that those trophies were made out of goat skin, after being painted and that the skins were not that of wild animals mentioned in the Schedule of the Act.
2. The trial Court accepted the prosecution case mainly relying on the evidence of PW-1, and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo 6 months' R.I. and to pay a fine to Rs. 50/- (sic) in default to undergo 2 months', R. I. His appeal and further revision were dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
3. From the above stated facts, it can be seen that the contravention is that of provisions of Section 44 and 49 of the Act. The evidence of PW-1 establishes that the appellant was found in possession of trophies. Section 44 prohibits any dealing in such trophies without a licence and Section 49 of the Act lays down that no person shall purchase, receive or acquire any captive animal, wild animal other than vermin or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy, or meat derived therefrom otherwise than from a dealer or from a person authorized to sell or otherwise transfer the same under this Act. PW-1 is an experienced and specially trained officer. His evidence thus establishes that the accused was in possession of those trophies and all the Courts below have accepted the same.
4. Now coming to the sentence, we are of the view that only the first part of sub-section (1) of Section 51 is attracted and not the proviso. There is no evidence whatsoever when the accused came into possession. No doubt it was for the accused to have given an explanation, but what is clear from the evidence is that there is only a contravention, namely that a declaration as required under Section 40 was not made and that the act of dealing in the trophies by the appellant was without a license. Under these special facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, the minimum sentence of 6 months as provided under the proviso is not attracted. It is stated that the appellant has been in jail for about 2 months. We think that the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. His sentence of fine and default clause shall however remain as it was. The appeal is allowed subject to the modification of sentence.
Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana
1995(2) Supreme Court Cases 577
K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala. JJ.
... 10. ...This Court held that the scheme is meant for the reasonable accomplishment of the statutory object which is to promote the orderly development of the city of Bangalore and adjoining areas and to preserve open spaces by reserving public parks and playgrounds with a view to protecting the residents from ill effects or urbanisation.
..... this Court further held that the reservation of open spaces for parks and playgrounds are universally recognised as a legitimate exercise of statutory power rationally related to the protection of the residents of the locality from the ill-effects of urbanisation.
... 11. ....The land having been taken from the citizens for a public purpose, the Municipality is required to use the land for the protection or preservation of hygienic conditions of the local residents in particular and the people in general and not for any others purpose.
Yashwant Trimbak Oke v. State of Maharashtra
Writ Petition No. 1732 of 1995
M. B. Shah, C.J. & J.N. Patel, J.
In this Public Interest Litigation the State Government has taken out this notice of motion for permitting it to grant permission to various applicants for holding Navratri festival with the use of loudspeakers in greater Mumbai from 13th to 21st October 1996 upto 1:00 a.m. It is pointed out that the authorities of State Government under the Rules called “the Rules for Licensing, Controlling and Prohibiting the use of Loudspeaker in or near all public entertainment place in Greater Bombay Rule, 1994” empowers them to grant exemption in certain cases....
7.It should not be forgotten that Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 enacted by Parliament and the Rules framed thereunder are meant for enforcement and are nor for their violation. It is the duty of the State Government to enforce it rigourously and not to find out excuses for not implementing it. Effective control of noise disturbance is for the well being of the society. The adverse effect of noise pollutin is now scientifically examined and is well known as it adversely affects the health of the citizens.
8. While dealing with a similar application during the Ganesh festival, we have rejected ti by our order dated 10th September, 1996 by observing that religious ceremony nowhere provides that on religious festival days loudspeaker is a must without which festivals cannot be observed. For us, it would be difficult to distinguish Ganesh festival from Navratri festival.
In any case, there is no question or granting any permission by us or putting an imprint or seal to do something which is in violation of the Environment Act and the Rule.It is for the State Government to implement the said Act and the Rules and prohibit certain activities which adversely affect the lives of persons who cannot oppose the noise pollution for various restraints. It is the duty of the State Government not to encourage the activities which will lead to violation of law.
9. Hence, the State Government would take appropriate steps to control noise pollution created by loudspeakers during these festivals and protect the silent sufferers, may be students, old, infirm or others not interested. It is for the State to implement the law as it is.
B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India
(1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 594
Kuldip Singh and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
KULDIP SINGH, J. - Historic city of Delhi - the capital of India - is one of the most polluted cities in the world. The .authorities, responsible for pollution control and environment protection, has not been able to provide clean and healthy environment to the residents of Delhi. The ambient air is so much polluted that it is difficult to breathe. More and more Delhities are suffering from respiratory diseases and throat infections. River Yamuna - the main source of drinking water supply - is the free dumping place for untreated sewage and industrial waste. Apart from air and water pollution, the city is virtually an open dustbin. Garbage strewn all over Delhi is a common sight. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the MCD) constituted under the Delhi Municipal Act, 1957 (Delhi Act) and the New Delhi Municipal Council (the NDMC) constituted under the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (New Delhi Act) are wholly remiss in the discharge of their duties under law......
2. In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - an advocate of this Court - has sought directions to the MCD and the NDMC to perform their statutory duties in particular the collection, removal and disposal of garbage and other waste.
3. This Court on 16-12-1994 passed the following order in the writ petition:
“We direct the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority to place on record the list of all garbage dumping places and city garbage collection centres within six weeks from today. It shall also be stated as to what steps are being taken by these Authorities to keep these places clean and tidy. These Authorities shall also consider the possibility of making it mandatory that the garbage etc. should be dumped at these places in plastic/jute bags to be supplied by the Corporation at subsidised rates.”
4. Mr. H.K. Handa, Executive Engineer, MCD, filed a short affidavit dated 30-1-1995 indicating that three statutory bodies function within their respective territories in the Union Territory of Delhi, covering following areas:
(1) Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1399.26 Sq. Km.
(2) New Delhi Municipal Committee 42.40 Sq. Km.
(3) Delhi Cantonment Board 40.80 Sq. Km.
1484.46 Sq. Km.
5. At present about 4000 metric tons (MT) of garbage is collected daily by the MCD. The disposal of the garbage is done mainly by "Land Fill Method". It is stated in the affidavit that at present the total number of garbage collection centres are 1804 (337 dhalaos, 1284 dustbins, 176 open sites and 7 steelbins). The garbage collection trucks collect the garbage from the collection centres and take it to the nearest Sanitary Land Fill (SLF). 19 hospitals, 156 dispensaries, 160 maternity and child welfare centres, 5 primary health centres and 14 clinics are functioning under the control of MCD. Except RBTB Hospital, no other hospital etc. has installed incinerator to burn the hospital waste. It is highlighted in the affidavit that about 45% of the total population of Delhi is living in slums, unauthorised colonies and clusters. There are about 4,80,000 jhuggies in Delhi. According to a rough estimate about 6 persons stay in each jhuggi. They throw their garbage on-the road or nearby dustbins.
6. Mr. S.C. Kumar, Executive Engineer has filed further affidavit dated 13-7-1995 on behalf of the MCD. The collection and disposal of the garbage is done by the "Solid Waste Department" of the MCD ... ... .
8. Mr. Kumar has further stated in his affidavit that composting is one of the solutions for disposal of garbage and getting soil conditioner through the process. According to him the MCD compost plant at Okhla had to be closed few years back since its running was not financially viable.
There is a proposal to revive the same. The Jagmohan Committee has recommended for installation of 4 additional compost plants in Delhi. Regarding privatisation, it is stated as under:
“As an effort to explore the alternative method, privatisation of sanitation work is also being considered to be adopted on trial basis. However final decision in this regard is yet to be taken.”
9. It is stated in the affidavit that orders for purchase of 200 trucks have been placed with M/s Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur. Tenders for purchase of 35 suction machines, 50 front-end-loaders have been received and are under process. It is stated that 11 more bulldozers are required. It is further stated that 4 compactors of different capacities, 4 Nos. of poclain on chain/tyre and some more tipper trucks are required.
10. Medical Officer of Health has filed affidavit dated 12-5-1995 on behalf of NDMC. Regarding "door to door garbage collection" the affidavit indicates as under:
“NDMC has introduced a scheme of door to door collection of garbage on experimental basis in few colonies. Under this scheme, introduced on 1-5-1994, NDMC is supplying 25 polythene garbage bags of 19” x 25” capable of holding about 10-12 kgs per month at the subsidised price of Rs. 15 per house per month in the following areas:
The said garbage bags are collected on daily basis by our staff deployed and then deposited in the nearby dustbins for the purpose for further transporting them by our staff to the dumping ground maintained by Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is stated that not more than 40% of the residents under the scheme avail the benefit of the scheme. It is specifically stated that NDMC does not have any dumping ground within its jurisdiction.”
11. It is stated in the affidavit that average of 300-350 tons of garbage is generated everyday in the NDMC area. For the purpose of collection and disposal of garbage the area is divided into 13 parts (circles). There are 49 jhuggi-jhompri clusters having 12,500 jhuggies in the NDMC area. There are 944 garbage collecting places (550 trollies and 394 dustbins). The task is undertaken by a fleet of 1423 permanent Safai Karamcharis, 600 Muster Roll workers and 149 part-time Safai Karamcharis.
12. This Court on 15-9-1995 passed the following order:
“.....It cannot be disputed that the collection and disposal of garbage in the city of Delhi is causing serious problem. Statutory authorities like MCD and NDMC have been created to control this problem. It is not for this Court to keep on monitoring these problems. The officers who are manning these institutions must realise their responsibilities and show the end result.....”
13. Pursuant to the above-quoted order, Commander Mukesh Paul, Medical Officer of Health, NDMC has filed an affidavit dated 10-10-1995. It is stated in the affidavit that lack of civic sense, lack of dustbins, absenteeism among the staff, logistics problems, multiplicity of authorities, disposal of household garbage by the servants, problems of jhuggi-jhompri clusters, floating population and for various other reasons, it is not possible to give the time schedule regarding the cleaning of Delhi as directed by this Court. Various steps taken by the NDMC to improve sanitation/ garbage disposal have also been indicated. An additional affidavit filed by Shri Anshu Prakash on behalf of NDMC indicates that the following measures for speedy removal of garbage and for maintenance of effective sanitation have been undertaken:
(a) Strengthening of Safai Karmachari workforce.
(b) Lifting and removal of garbage
(c) Regular inspection by Nodal Officers
(d) Manning of Dhalaos
(e) Door to door collection and NGO participation.
14. Mr. C.P. Gupta filed affidavit dated 17-10-1995 on behalf of MCD wherein he stated as under:
“It is, therefore, submitted that no specific date for making Delhi 'absolutely garbage free’ every morning can be given at this stage. Nevertheless, the endeavours of MCD would be to achieve the spirit of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court.”
15.Under Secretary, Ministry of Health, Government of India in his affidavit has stated that Safdarjung Hospital, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and Sucheta Kripalani Hospital are under the control and supervision of the Ministry of Health, Government of India. Safdarjung Hospital has installed incinerator with waste disposal capacity of 230 kgs per hour. The said hospital generates about 2000-2500 kgs of waste everyday. It is stated that the incinerator functions in two shifts for 10 hours for 7 days a week. It is not clear from the affidavit whether the incinerator is in working condition or out of order. The affidavit states that three vertical type incinerators have also been installed by the Safdarjung Hospital. Incinerators have not been installed in the other hospitals. It is stated that proposal to install incinerators in RML Hospital and Lady Hardinge Medical College is under consideration.
16. According to the affidavit filed by Mrs. Satbir Silas, Joint Secretary (Medical and Public Health), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, there are 13 hospitals which are functioning under the control of the said Government. Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan Hospital has no incinerator of its own. It is using the incinerator located in G.B. Pant Hospital. There is an incinerator in Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital with capacity of 125 kgs per hour. The incinerator is not enough to burn the entire hospital waste. It is stated that a second incinerator at the cost of Rs. 44 lakhs is likely to be installed. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital has installed an incinerator with capacity of burning 85 kgs of waste per hour. It is stated that the incinerator is meeting the need of the hospital. G.B. Pant Hospital has two incinerators with capacity of 60 kgs each. There are no incinerators in Civil Hospital, Nehru Memorial Medical College, Guru Nanak Eye Centre, Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Rao Tula Ram Memorial Hospital and Dr. N.C. Joshi Memorial Hospital. The three remaining hospitals, namely, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and Maulana Azad Medical College have installed incinerators.