Aditya Dubey & Anr vs Union of India & Ors

Prayers in this application are:-

“A. Constitute an independent inter-state agency empowered with authority and resources for implementation of “Maily Se Nirmal Yamuna Rejuvenation Plan, 2017” within a reasonable time period of 18 months;

B. Direct the removal of Wazirabad Barrage;

C. Impose a 50% capping on water diversion from River Yamuna at HKB;

D. direct a review of consent to establish and operate of all polluting industries in the basin targeting a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) regime.”

The case of the applicant is that there is failure to remedy high level of pollution in river Yamuna inspite of several orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal which needs to be remedied.

This Tribunal has already dealt with the issue in O.A. No. 06/2012, Manoj Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. vide order dated 27.01.2021, in continuation of earlier orders dated 13.01.2015 (2015 SCC Online NGT 840), 08.05.2015 (2015 SCC Online NGT 841) and dated 07.12.2017 in OA 65 of 2016 Manoj Misra v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. and OA 76 of 2016 Pramod Kumar Tyagi Vs. Art of Living International Center & Ors.

Earlier, the matter was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. No. 725/1994 News Item “Hindustan Times” AQFM Yamuna v. Central Pollution Control Board & Anr till the proceedings were transferred to this Tribunal vide order dated 24.04.2017, for further monitoring.

The Tribunal constituted a two Member Yamuna Monitoring Committee (YMC) vide order dated 26.07.2018 which prepared an action plan. The YMC monitored execution of action plan and filed five reports before this Tribunal at intervals which were dealt with by further orders and directions issued. Finally, vide order dated 27.01.2021 the matter was disposed of on consideration of the fifth report of the YMC filed on 07.12.2020. Considering the said report, the Tribunal issued final directions to be followed up and monitored by the concerned Administrative Authorities, in the manner laid down in the said order. It was observed that issues having been crystalised and specific directions issued on each aspect, what remained was follow up action which required constant monitoring by the Administration.

In view of above, it may not be necessary to monitor the issue for indefinite period. Any further grievance has to be considered in accordance with the mechanism laid down in the earlier order of this Tribunal.

The application is disposed of without prejudice to the remedies of the applicant as above.