Delhi Jal Board vs Manoj Misra and Ors.

Delay condoned.

The National Green Tribunal has passed a series of orders aimed at ensuring timely steps being taken for cleaning river Yamuna. One of the orders passed by it on 8th May, 2015 directed the appellant-Delhi Jal Board not to carry out any further work on existing projects or any new project except with the specific permission of the Tribunal in that regard. By another order dated 9th February, 2016, the Tribunal directed that Delhi Jal Board not to incur any expenditure on laying of sewerage network, establishment of STPS or any other major expenditure except day to day maintenance. It also observed that the Board had spent thousands of crores on laying sewerage line and establishment of STPs and yet pollution of river Yamuna has remained unabated. By yet another order dated 10th March, 2016 the Tribunal has placed a blanket ban on Delhi Jal Board incurring any expenditure except on maintenance of the existing infrastructure. The Board feeling aggrieved by the said directions has filed the present appeal in which apart from challenging the above orders it has challenged an order dated 21st March, 2016 whereby the Tribunal has directed the matter to come up again on 30th March, 2016.

Appearing for the Board, Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel vehemently argued that the Tribunal was not justified in restraining the Board from undertaking any further work on the existing projects or on any new project. It was contended that laying of sewerage lines was absolutely essential for a gainful utilisation of the STPs that have already been constructed or are proposed to be constructed in future. Any restraint on the laying of such lines was not, therefore, in public interest or in the interest of cleaning the river Yamuna argued Mr. Venkataramani. It was also contended that the Board had already started work on the "Interceptor Sewerage Project" which will in terms of the direction issued by the Tribunal have to be abandoned although a substantial amount has already been spent on the same. It is argued that the order restraining the Board from completing the ongoing projects is even otherwise legally unsound and ought to be vacated in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Tribunal has in its order dated 8th May, 2015 no doubt restrained the Board from carrying on any further work on existing projects or on new projects except with the specific permission of the Tribunal. That direction, in our opinion, leaves it open to the Board to approach the Tribunal for permission to complete the existing projects or even take up new projects if there is any justification for doing so. Although according to Mr. Venkataramani an application for permission to complete the existing projects was made before the Tribunal but the attempt remained abortive inasmuch as the Tribunal has instead of permitting the completion of the ongoing projects placed a blanket embargo upon incurring of any expenditure except for maintenance of the existing works. Our attention was in that regard drawn by Mr. Venkataramani to an application filed before the Tribunal seeking permission to complete the ongoing works. The application we regret to say is not only cryptic but wholly bereft of any details. We failed to understand as to why the Board has been so miserly in sharing details and the factual background in which the ongoing projects remain to be completed or deserve to be taken on their logical conclusion. We have no manner of doubt that if the Board places the material facts before the Tribunal and makes out a case for permission to complete the ongoing projects with necessary facts and figures the Tribunal would bestow its anxious consideration upon the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. So long as the Board does not do so, it cannot be heard to make a grievance against the order which the Tribunal has passed in righteous indignation apparently on account of the Board''s failure to take effective steps in the matter. With the above observations, we dismiss this appeal, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal for vacation and/or modification of the impugned orders. We hope with trust that if an application is indeed filed by the Board, the Tribunal shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.