Gram Panchayat Araba vs State Of Rajasthan

This application seeks review of order of this Tribunal dated 25.02.2022 in O.A. No. 329/2015, Gram Panchayat Araba v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

By the said order the Tribunal dealt with the remedial action and accountability for pollution of three rivers - Luni, Badi and Jojri. The Tribunal found huge pollution of the rivers by discharge of untreated effluents and sewage by the industries and the Municipalities, including the review applicant and also failure of the statutory regulators to perform their responsibilities. The Tribunal conducted investigation by appointing expert Committees and finally a fact finding Committee headed by a former Chief Justice of High Court. The matter was considered at length by hearing to all concerned authorities. Finding past violations, the Tribunal determined liability on polluter pays principle and also directed future compliance. It will be appropriate to refer to some of the observations from the order:-

“xxxx…………………………………….xxxx……………………………xxxx

Monitoring Committee also considered challenges and hurdles in implementation of environmental laws and Tribunal’s directions and made suggestions as under:

…..xxx………………………..……xxxx…………………………………..xxx

Not only that the sewage problem contributed to spreading effluents only from Jodhpur area. The problem of Jodhpur sewage is found to be most alarming because Jodhpur is the second biggest city of the state of Rajasthan and it’s pollution maybe 15-20 lacs. We may look the facts of another comparatively very small city, Pali. The Pali sewage also is reaching into the Jojari river. As submitted by the R.O., Pali, the following is the status of sewage pollution-

…..xxx………………………xxxx…………………………………..xxx

Monitoring Committee further considered pollution generation and spreading and said:

“(12) Pollution generation and spreading

(A) Pollution generation and spreading of pollution are two separate issues. There are many directions for pollutions generating industries. But pollution speeders are yet to be dealt with. From the facts considered while considering the sewage management of Jodhpur City, we found the volume of liquid discharged from the Jodhpur city and it’s nearby areas that the spreader of the pollution, in the case before us is the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation for both, legal and illegally established Textile and Steel Industries.”

…..xxx………………………xxxx……………………………………..xxx

With respect to industries running illegally or otherwise causing pollution, Monitoring Committee had examined the matter separately in para 14 and 15 as under:

…..xxx………………………xxxx……………………………………..xxx

It is pertinent to note that Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and RIICO officials of Jodhpur, in their written reports submitted to the Committee, admitted that they failed to, not only stop the discharge of effluents in the river Jojari and did not follow the ZLD and discharging the treated and untreated sewage in more than hundred MLD in Jojari river.

Some further recommendations had been submitted separately by the Chairperson, Hon’ble Justice Prakash Tatia, former Judge who headed Monitoring Committee, as under:

…..xxx………………………xxxx……………………………………..xxx

The PSB did not take any action against the Municipal Corporation for discharging STP treated or poorly treated effluents in the river Jojari. The RIICO could not prevent Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and the CETP from using RIICO storm drain for their sewage and effluents discharge.

…..xxx………………………xxxx……………………………………..xxx

To solve the problems of villagers of Araba and all nearby areas of about 40 kilometres, directions are needed against the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, Pali and Balotra, the RIICO and the State to give the highest priority to t he sewage management to maximum reuse of water after treatment and proper disposal of water which can’t be reused.”

…..xxx………………………xxxx……………………………………..xxx

In this case facts are self-speaking. Continuous pollution on account of rampant establishment of industries generating hazardous waste and industrial effluent and discharging the same in water bodies/rivers as noted above without appropriate treatment is admitted. In all the three matters concerns/complaints of applicants were found true and thereafter various orders were issued/passed for prevention of further degradation of environment, protection of rivers and environment and restoration/remediation. Dozens of affidavits and compliance reports have been filed but we have no hesitation in stating that the same do not show an urgent desire in the concerned regulatory and statutory authorities to justify their constitution and empowerment by law for protection of environment. It appears that under the fear of orders of Court/Tribunal, some work was attempted/done but comparing need of the alarming situation, very little work was done and that too only to give a colour of compliance but the fact remains that substantially there is non-compliance and no effective measures were taken by the concerned statutory regulators and other statutory authorities. The result is that environment has continued to be degraded and damaged by the polluters including industries, municipal bodies and other statutory bodies like RIICO.

…..xxx………..…………………xxxx……………………………………..xxx

From the law discussed above and the facts and pleadings on record, referred above, it cannot be doubted that here is a case where violation of environmental norms are admitted; continued violation is also going on, concerned and responsible proponents and authorities are trying to justify their action of continued pollution by discharging untreated/partially treated effluent in rivers on various pretext and excuses but have not been able to find a positive solution to end this illegality and offense in the last almost a decade. There is no explanation of responsible authorities as to how these rampant vioations have perpetuated and no effective action as taken. This has to be severely deprecated, castigated, condemned and disapproved.

309 In view of the above discussion and also the material available on record, we find no reason not to accept report submitted by Monitoring Committee, interim as well as final. Accordingly above reports are accepted and arguments raised otherwise by the respective respondents including proponents, are rejected.

…..xxx………………………xxxx……………………………………..xxx

In the light of the above discussion, we dispose of all these OAs with the following directions:

…..xxx………………………xxxx……………………………………..xxx

(iv) The local bodies/authorities of District Barmer and Jodhpur each shall pay compensation of Rs. 2 Crores within 15 days with RSPCB and in case steps required to be taken by them for stopping pollution for complying with the directions mentioned above within 6 months are failed, they shall pay further compensation of above amount.”

Though the review applicant has claimed certain subsequent steps, it has not disputed the past violations for which the compensation was assessed. Plea of lack of resources cannot be the justification. Even now, it is not the claim of the applicant that there is total compliance in preventing discharge of untreated sewage.

We are satisfied that the present review application is merely an attempt to seek rehearing which is not permissible.

Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.