1. The matter has been put up today in continuation of proceedings on the subject of monitoring execution of orders of this Tribunal on the subject of compliance of waste management (solid and liquid) and other environmental issues, particularly air pollution, in the States of Maharashtra in terms of earlier orders of this Tribunal and orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
II. ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT TRANSFERRING THE ISSUE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT TO THIS TRIBUNAL:
2. It is necessary to set out brief background of the proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 888/1996, Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India, transferred proceedings pending before it on the subject of solid waste management 2010. The Tribunal.
3. The matter was earlier considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia vide judgments reported in (2000) 2 SCC 679 and (2004) 13 SCC 538 directing scientific disposal of waste by setting up of compost plants/processing plants, preventing water percolation through heaps of garbage, creating focused ‘solid waste management cells’ in all States and complying with the Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (SWM Rules, 2016) on urgent basis. It was observed that the local authorities constituted for providing services to the citizens are lethargic and insufficient in their functioning which is impermissible. Non-accountability has led to lack of effort on the part of the employees. Domestic garbage and sewage along with poor drainage system in an unplanned manner contribute heavily to the problem of solid waste. The number of slums have multiplied significantly occupying large areas of public land. Promise of free land attracts more land grabbers. Instead of “slum clearance” there is “slum creation” in cities which is further aggravating the problem of domestic waste being strewn in the open. Accordingly, the Court directed that provisions pertaining to sanitation and public health be complied with, streets and public premises be cleaned daily, statutory authorities levy and recover charges from any person violating laws and ensure scientific disposal of waste, landfill sites be identified keeping in mind requirement of the city for next 20 years and environmental considerations, sites be identified for setting up of compost plants, steps be taken to prevent fresh encroachments and compliance report be submitted within eight weeks.
4. Further observations in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (2004) 13 SCC 538are:
“3. The petitioner has handed over a note in the Court showing the progress that has been made in some of the States and also setting out some of the suggestions, including the suggestion for creation of solid waste management cell, so as to put a focus on the issue and also to provide incentives to those who perform well as was tried in some of the States. The said note states as under:
“1. As a result of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders on 26-72004, in Maharashtra the number of authorisations granted for solid waste management (SWM) has increased from 32% to 98%, in Gujarat from 58% to 92% and in M.P. from NIL to 34%. No affidavits at all have been received from the 24 other States/UTs for which CPCB reported NIL or less than 3% authorisations in February 2004. All these States and their SPCBs can study and learn from Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat's successes.
2. All States/UTs and their SPCBs/PCCs have totally ignored the improvement of existing open dumps, due by 31-12-2001, let alone identifying and monitoring the existing sites. Simple steps can be taken immediately at almost no cost by every single ULB to prevent monsoon water percolation through the heaps, which produces highly polluting black run-off (leachate). Waste heaps can be made convex to eliminate standing water, upslope diversion drains can prevent water inflow, downslope diversion drains can capture leachate for recirculation onto the heaps, and disused heaps can be given soil cover for vegetative healing.
3. Lack of funds is no excuse for inaction. Smaller towns in every State should go and learn from Suryapet in A.P. (population 103,000) and Namakkal in T.N. (population 53,000) which have both seen dustbin-free ‘zero garbage towns’ complying with the MSW Rules since 2003 with no financial input from the State or the Centre, just good management and a sense of commitment.
4. States seem to use the Rules as an excuse to milk funds from the Centre, by making that a precondition for action and inflating waste processing costs 2-3 fold. The Supreme Court Committee recommended 1/3 contribution each from the city, State and Centre. Before seeking 70-80% Centre's contribution, every State should first ensure that each city first spends its own share to immediately make its wastes non-polluting by simple sanitising/stabilising, which is always the first step in composting viz. inoculate the waste with cow dung solution or bio culture and placing it in windrows (long heaps) which are turned at least once or twice over a period of 45 to 60 days.
5. Unless each State creates a focussed ‘solid waste management cell’ and rewards its cities for good performance, both of which Maharashtra has done, compliance with the MSW Rules seems to be an illusion.
6. The admitted position is that the MSW Rules have not been complied with even after four years. None of the functionaries have bothered or discharged their duties to ensure compliance. Even existing dumps have not been improved. Thus deeper thought and urgent and immediate action is necessary to ensure compliance in future.”
5. In this regard, reference may also be made to orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand (1980) 4 SCC 162 and B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 594 laying down that clean environment is fundamental right of citizens under Article 21 and it is for the local bodies as well as the State to ensure that public health is preserved by taking all possible steps. For doing so, financial inability cannot be pleaded.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also dealt with the issue of liquid waste management and after issuing requisite directions, required this Tribunal to monitor the compliance. Directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court include steps for liquid waste management by setting up requisite treatment plants for which funds are to be generated by the local bodies and the States as per constitutional provisions. on or before 31—32017
III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN PURSUANCE OF ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT TILL DATE:
Solid Waste Management:
Order dated 22.12.2016:
7. This Tribunal considered the matter of solid waste management after notifying all the concerned States/Regulatory Bodies and finally disposed of the same on 22.12.2016 O.A. No. 199/2014 2016 SCC Online NGT 2981 requiring all the States/UTs to follow the SWM Rules, 2016 after preparing requisite action plans in a time bound manner with further direction that any State/UT which failed to comply with the Rules shall be liable to be proceeded against under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act), apart from being required to pay environmental compensation and senior most officers of the States/Local Bodies being personally liable. The directions also include requirement for segregation of waste, providing buffer zone around plants and landfill sites and due monitoring. The States/Local Bodies were also to create market for consumption of Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF). Tipping fee was to include the efficient and regular monitoring of waste processing plant, segregation of inert and Construction and Demolition(C&D) material and its transportation. Landfill sites were required to be bio-stabilized preventing leachate and generation of Methane, enforcement of Extended Producer Responsibility, rights and liabilities under contracts being made consistent with the Rules, creating public awareness about the facilities available at regular intervals. Copy of the judgment was circulated to all the Chief Secretaries/Advisors of States/UTs.
8. Execution of above directions has been subject matter of further proceedings in the last more than three years after the said order and after almost 20 years after the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Order dated 20.08.2018:
9. Reference may be now made to some further significant orders. Vide order dated 20.08.2018 O.A. No. 606/2018, after referring to earlier proceedings and a chamber meeting with all the concerned stakeholders, the Tribunal considered the following questions:
“i. Whether State-wise Action Plan with timelines and budgetary support/provision for management of MSW has been prepared?
ii. Whether each city/town/urban local body is covered under the said Plan and individual Action Plan has timelines with budgetary provisions?
iii. What time has been fixed to completely comply with the provisions of the Rules, 2016?
iv. What are the main constraints of non-compliance of Rules, 2016?”
It was directed that action plans be finalized latest by 31.10.2018 and executed latest by 31.12.2019 which was to be overseen by the Principal Secretaries of Urban/Rural Development Departments of States/UTs. States were directed to standardize technical specifications instead of leaving the same to individual local bodies. Further directions are for installing CCTV cameras at dump sites, installing GPS system in garbage collection vans, adopting best practices including control rooms where citizens can upload photos of garbage to be looked into by responsible officers, conducting performance audit with reference to source segregation, door to door collection, public sweeping, waste processing, grievance redressal mechanism and monitoring. This Tribunal also constituted Regional/Apex Committees for a limited period.
Sewage Management:
10. Apart from the issue of SWM, the Tribunal also dealt with the issue of sewage management in pursuance of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paryavaran Suraksha v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 326 requiring this Tribunal to monitor directions for proper treatment of sewage to prevent untreated sewage and other effluents being discharged in water bodies. On 28.08.2019, it was directed that 100% sewage treatment must be ensured by all local bodies. Vide further order dated 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018, the Tribunal directed that for failure to commence in-situ remediation, compensation will be payable at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per drain after 31.03.2020 and for failure to commence setting up of STPs after 31.03.2020 compensation is to be paid at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per STP. For failure to complete the project, compensation has to be paid at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per STP per month after 31.03.2021. Relevant part of the order is quoted below:
“47. (i) 100% treatment of sewage may be ensured as directed by this Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 by 31.03.2020 atleast to the extent of in-situ remediation and before the said date, commencement of setting up of STPs and the work of connecting all the drains and other sources of generation of sewage to the STPs must be ensured. If this is not done, the local bodies and the concerned departments of the States/UTs will be liable to pay compensation as already directed vide order dated 22.08.2019 in the case of river Ganga i.e. Rs. 5 lakhs per month per drain, for default in in-situ remediation and Rs. 5 lakhs per STP for default in commencement of setting up of the STP.
ii. Timeline for completing all steps of action plans including completion of setting up STPs and their commissioning till 31.03.2021 in terms of order dated 08.04.2019 in the present case will remain as already directed. In default, compensation will be liable to be paid at the scale laid down in the order of this Tribunal dated 22.08.2019 in the case of river Ganga i.e. Rs. 10 lakhs per month per STP.”
Other issues:
11. Apart from solid waste management and sewage management, the Tribunal is seized of other significant environmental issues in separate proceedings including 351 polluted river stretches Vide order dated 06.12.2019, O.A. No. 673/2018, 122 non-attainment cities Vide order dated 20.11.2019, O.A. No. 681/2018, 100 polluted industrial clusters Vide order dated 14.11.2019, O.A. No. 1038/2018, illegal sand mining Vide order dated 26.07.2019, O.A. No. 360/2015, reuse of treated water Vide order dated 10.05.2019, O.A. No. 148/2016, restoration of water bodies Vide order dated 10.05.2019, O.A. No. 325/2015, compliance of Plastic Waste, Bio-medical waste etc. Vide order dated 24.04.2019, O.A. No. 606/2018 — Karnataka, carrying capacity study Vide order dated 11.02.2019, Appeal No. 122/2018, remediation of legacy waste sites Vide order dated 17.07.2019, O.A. No. 519/2019 with O.A. No. 386/2019, preparation of District Environment Plans Vide order dated 25.07.2019, O.A. No. 710/2017, Hazardous Waste Management Rules Vide order dated 26.08.2019, O.A. No. 804/2017, depletion of ground water in over-exploited, critical and semi-critical areas Vide order dated 10.10.2019, O.A. No. 176/2015. However, for today's consideration, as directed vide order dated 07.01.2020, primary monitoring is focused at:
(i) Solid waste management including legacy waste.
(ii) Sewage management and 351 polluted river stretches.
(iii) Air quality management in 122 non-attainment cities.
Order dated 16.01.2019:
12. Vide order dated 16.01.2019, after noticing that statutory timelines under Rule 22 had expired for various steps and failure of the statutory authorities was punishable criminal offence under the provisions of the EP Act as well as under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act), this Tribunal required presence of Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs. The timelines in the said Rule are as follows:
“Sl. No. Activity Time limit from the date of notification of rules (1) (2) (3) 1. Identification of suitable sites for setting up solid waste processing facilities. 1 year 2. Identification of suitable sites for setting up common regional sanitary landfill facilities for suitable clusters of local authorities under 0.5 million population and for setting up common regional sanitary landfill facilities or stand alone sanitary landfill facilities by all local authorities having a population of 0.5 million or more. 1 year 3. Procurement of suitable sites for setting up solid waste processing facility and sanitary landfill facilities. 2 years 4. Enforcing waste generators to practice segregation of bio degradable, recyclable, combustible, sanitary waste domestic hazardous and inert solid wastes at source. 2 years 5. Ensure door to door collection of segregated waste and its transportation in covered vehicles to processing or disposal facilities. 2 years 6. ensure separate storage, collection and transportation of construction and demolition wastes. 2 years 7. setting up solid waste processing facilities by all Local Bodies having 100000 or more population. 2 years 8. Setting up solid waste processing facilities by Local Bodies and census towns below 100000 population. 3 years 9. setting up common or stand alone sanitary landfills by or for all Local Bodies having 0.5 million or more population for the disposal of only such residual wastes from the processing facilities as well as untreatable inert wastes as permitted under the Rules. 3 years 10. setting up common or regional sanitary landfills by 3 years all Local Bodies and census towns under 0.5 million population for the disposal of permitted waste under the rules. 3 years 11. bio-remediation or capping of old and abandoned dump sites. 5 years”
13. It was noted that apart from failure of solid waste management, there was also failure of liquid waste management. Such failure had resulted in 351 identified polluted river stretches, 102 (now 122) nonattainment cities in terms of air quality, 100 polluted industrial clusters and other serious environmental consequences, threatening life and health of citizens, water and air quality and the climate. The Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs were required to acquaint themselves with specific issues mentioned in the said order and coordinate with all the concerned authorities in their respective States/UTs and appear before this Tribunal with their respective status reports. Other directions included constitution of special task force in each district for awareness by involving educational, religious and social organizations, including local Eco-clubs.
14. The issues specified were as follows:
“a. Status of compliance of SWM Rule, 2016, Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 in their respective areas.
b. Status of functioning of Committees constituted by this order.
c. Status of the Action Plan in compliance vide order dated 20.09.2018 in the News Item published in “The Hindu” authored by Shri Jacob Koshy Titled “More river stretches are now critically polluted, : CPCB (Original Application No. 673/2018).
d. Status of functioning of Committees constituted in News Item Published in “The Times of India’ Authored by Shri Vishwa Mohan Titled “NCAP with Multiple timelines to Clear Air in 102 Cities to be released around August 15” dated 08.10.2018 (O.A. No. 681/2018).
e. Status of Action Plan with regard to identification of polluted industrial clusters in O.A. No. 1038/2018, News item published in “The Asian Age” Authored by Sanjay Kaw Titled “CPCB to rank industrial units on pollution levels” dated 13.12.2018.
f. Status of the work in compliance of the directions passed in O.A. No. 173 of 2018, Sudarsan Das v. State of West Bengal Order dated 04.09.2018.
g. Total amount collected from erring industries on the basis of ‘Polluter Pays’ principle, ‘Precautionary principle’ and details of utilization of funds collected.
h. Status of the identification and development of Model Cities and Towns in the State in the first phase which can be replicated later for other cities and towns of the State.”
15. Accordingly, the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs appeared and interacted with this Tribunal. The Tribunal noted unsatisfactory state of affairs on the subject of environmental governance in the country and serious non-compliance of statutory mandate, need to ensure that statutory regulators performed their duty and are manned by credible persons. Failure in this regard had potential for public health and environment and sustainable development goals. It was noted that SOP had been prepared for clearance of legacy waste and circulated to the SPCBs/PCCs which had been successfully implemented at some places like Indore.
16. After interaction with the Chief Secretaries on several dates, further directions were issued which were by and large on same pattern as non-compliance was found by all the States/UTs. It will be suffice to refer to the observations and directions issued vide order dated 18.07.2019 in respect of State of J&K, which was the last State in the series of interactions:
Observations:
“36. Needless to say that improvement in environment is not only inalienable duty of the State, but is also necessary for sustainable development which is essential for the health and well-being of citizens as well as for intergenerational equity. These principles require that all human activities should be conducted in such a way that the rights of future generations to access clean air and potable water are not taken away. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that water is being polluted because of discharge of untreated sewage and effluents. Air pollution is result of failure to manage solid waste and to prevent other causes leading to air pollution. There are also other issues like deterioration in groundwater level, damage to forests and wild life, unscientific and uncontrolled sand mining etc. Unsatisfactory implementation of law is clear from the fact that in spite of severe damage, there is no report of any convictions being recorded against the polluters, nor adequate compensation has been recovered for damage caused to the environment. Steps for community involvement are not adequate. There is reluctance even to declare some major cities as fully compliant with the environment norms. The authorities have not been able to evolve simplified and standard procedure for preparing project reports and giving of contracts. There is no satisfactory plan for reuse of the treated water or use of treated sewage or waste and for segregation and collection of solid waste, for managing the legacy waste or other wastes, etc.
37. Since we have found huge gap in steps taken and steps required to be taken to remedy the unsatisfactory state of environment, we had an interaction with the Chief Secretary about the way forward. The gap in the mandate of law on the one hand and actual compliance with law on the other has manifested itself in the form of polluted water, air (and land. Its actual measurement in terms of monetary value or the loss on account of adverse impact on public health and environment or otherwise in terms of number of deaths or diseases does not appear to have been duly and exhaustively undertaken by the official machinery so far for the country or for any particular area. The private reports mention diseases by pollution in the state of J&K, as already noted in the para 33 above. There are also various studies reporting about number of deaths and diseases in India by pollution.22 Death by pollution may be comparable to an offence of homicide and any disease on that account may be likewise comparable to attempt to murder or grievous hurt. Polluter is, thus, liable to be dealt with in the same manner as a person committing any other heinous crime as per law of the land. Mere fact that such polluter creates wealth or employment does not make the offence less serious. The statutory framework prohibits polluting activity and provides for penal consequences. Further, the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle requires compensation to be recovered to meet the cost of remedying the adverse impact of pollution. Governance of such laws can be held to be satisfactory if the magnitude of punishment of law violators corresponds to the extent of violation of law and the compensation recovered is adequate to meet the cost of damage. There is enough evidence of pollution but no data is shown of corresponding convictions or recovery of adequate compensation for restoration of environment. This calls for authentic study of the extent of damage to the environment and to the public health so that policy makers and law enforcers can bridge the gap.
38. In case extent of convictions for the environment related offences do not correspond to the extent of crime, paradigm shift in policies and strategies for implementation of law may need to be considered. Similarly, the mechanism for recovery of compensation may need to be revised on that pattern. Such review of policy cannot be left to the local bodies or the Pollution Control Boards but has to be at highest level in the State and further review at the national level. As noted in some of the studies, the ranking of the country in compliance of environmental norms needs to be brought to respectable higher position which may be possible only if there is change in policies and strategies for implementation of necessary norms at every level in right direction. The scale of compensation needs to be suitably revised so that the same is deterrent and adequate to meet the cost of reversing the pollution.
39. Authentic data is required to be compiled which is necessary for proper policy making. The Rules provide for such data to be collected at the state level as well as at the national level. If such data is not furnished timely from ground level with all the requisite details, the policy making remains deficient. Since none of the States is fully compliant with the mandate of statutory waste management rules under various headings, as already noted, remedial measures are necessary. We consider it necessary to observe that at least some major cities/towns/villages be first developed as model and thereafter successful experiment replicated in remaining cities/towns/villages.
40. Though environment is priceless and no amount of compensation may be sufficient for real restoration of environment to its pristine glory, the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle requires cost of restoration to be recovered which should be deterrent and also include Net Present Value (NPV) for environmental services forgone forever. Though such compensation is to be primarily recovered from polluters, where authorities fail to implement law and recover compensation on account of collusion or inaction, such authorities can also be made accountable and required to pay compensation. Strong central mechanism of auditing the compliance of environmental laws by the States and the Union Territories (UTs) is necessary. We are also of the view that to encourage enforcement of environmental laws, cognizance of performance or otherwise need to be taken by authorities allocating funds. Incentives can be given to encourage compliance and those deficient in compliance may be required to comply as a condition for getting grants or part of such grants. Such a policy may be a step in the right direction for achieving sustainable development goals. We take note of discussion on the subject in the minutes of National Development Council held on 01.10.1990.23 Therein a formula called “Gadgil — Mukerjee” formula is referred to envisaging grants to meet environmental problems. We may add that while such grants may be necessary, there may be a condition requiring measurable and demonstrable improvement in time bound manner as a condition for the grant. Accordingly, vide order dated 24.04.2019 a copy of this order has been sent to Niti Aayog, Finance Commission and MoEF&CC to consider the observations, particularly in this para.
41. One major hurdle in compliance of the Rules is lack of institutional training mechanism. Scheme of Rules and strategies for implementation, including technology to be used, best practices to be employed need to be identified. Resource persons, target group of persons to be trained, location at which training is to be undertaken need to be worked out.
42. It is also necessary to have an Environment Plan for the country as well as for the States which may identify and publish gaps in compliance of environmental law and indicate action plan to remedy the same. Compliance of environmental norms also requires carrying capacity study not only of eco-sensitive areas but also areas where violation of environmental laws has clearly surfaced out based on scientific data published by CPCB such as non-attainment cities in terms of air quality, critically polluted industrial clusters on account of air/water pollution, polluted river stretches etc. Drastic remedial measures may be necessary to deal with the same which should not merely be responsive but proactive by way of planning population density, vehicle numbers, nature and quality of vehicles, nature and quality of activity to be allowed. Absence of such measures may render it difficult to meaningfully implement the accepted norms of ‘Sustainable Development’ or ‘Intergenerational Equity’. Such planning is part of ‘Precautionary’ principle. ‘Polluter Pays’ principle can be meaningfully implemented only when assessmenent of damage is realistic and compensation recovered matches the extent of damage. As per census of India 2011, there are 475 places with 981 overgrowths (OGs) have been identified as Urban Agglomeration (UA). The number of total towns in India is 7,935 (Statutory Towns 4,041 + Census Towns 3,894). There are total 6,166 Urban Agglomeration/towns which constitutes the urban frame of the country. During FY 2017-2018, out of 35 SPCBs/PCCs only 16 SPCBs/PCCs reported the status of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.24 In view of these statistics, emergent and stringent measures are required for compliance of environmental norms.
43. We discussed with the Chief Secretary the above unsatisfactory situation of environment and about need for having an effective monitoring cell directly attached to the office of the Chief Secretary with experts in environment and related issues to assist the Chief Secretary.
44. The presence of Chief Secretary before this Tribunal was directed with an expectation that there will be realization of seriousness at the highest level which may percolate in the administration.”
Directions:
“45. In view of above, after discussion with the Chief Secretary, following further directions are issued:
i. Apart from three towns said to have been notified as proposed models for compliance of Environmental norms, atleast three villages in every District of the State may be notified on the website of the State within two weeks from today which will be made fully compliant with environmental norms within the next six months. T Remaining cities, towns and villages of the State may be made fully compliant in respect of environmental norms within one year.
ii. A quarterly report be furnished by the Chief Secretary, every three months. First such report shall be furnished by October-, 10, 2019.
iii. The Chief Secretary may personally monitor the progress, atleast once in a month, with all the District Magistrates.
iv. The District Magistrates may monitor the status of compliance of environmental norms, atleast once in two weeks.
v. The District Magistrates or other Officers may be imparted requisite training.
vi. Estimate of value of environmental degradation and cost of restoration be prepared and compensation be planned and recovered from polluters for environmental restoration and restitution on that basis.
vii. Performance audit of functioning of all regulatory bodies may be got conducted and remedial measures be taken, within six months.
viii. Introduction of a policy of giving ranking, based on performance on the subject of environment and giving of rewards or other incentives on that basis to individual areas, localities, institutions or individuals may be considered. This may also include encouraging students or other citizens significantly contributing to the cause of environment. The best practices may be evolved, if necessary, in the light of experiences on the subject. This may help in educating and involving public at large which may help in enhancing of environmental laws.
ix. The Chief Secretary may remain present in person before the Tribunal with the status of compliance in respect of various issues mentioned in para 22 as well as any other issues discussed in the above order on 10.02.2020 at 2. p.m. It is made clear that Chief Secretary may not delegate the above function and the further requirement of appearance before this Tribunal to anyone else. However, it will be open to him to change the date, by advance intimation by e-mail at ngt.filing@gmail.com to adjust their convenience.
A copy of the compliance report furnished by the Chief Secretary be sent to CPCB as already directed vide order dated 24.04.2019 for the State of Karnataka (supra).”
17. It was further directed that compliance reports be furnished by the States/UTs to CPCB. Reference may also be made to some further orders on the subject being dated 08.04.2019 O.A. No. 673/2018, 22.04.2019 O.A. No. 606/2018 — Meghalaya (directing training and capacity building at National and State Level), 23.04.2019 O.A. No. 606/2018 — Tamil Nadu (directing preparation of Annual Environment Plan giving status of compliance to environmental norms and gaps therein including assessment of damage to the environment in monetary terms), 24.04.2019 O.A. No. 606/2018 — Karnataka (directing monitoring of compliance of Plastic Waste, 11.02.2019 Appeal No. 122/2018, 08.03.2019 O.A. No. 568/2016, 02.11.201831, 10.05.2019 O.A. No. 148/2016, 10.05.2019 O.A. No. 325/2015, 17.07.2019 Original Application No. 519/2019 WITH Original Application No. 386/2019 (remediation of legacy waste sites), 22.07.2019 Execution Application No. 13/2019 (Plastic Waste Management), 25.07.2019 O.A. No. 710/2017 (preparation of District Environment Plans), 26.07.2019 O.A. No. 360/2015 (Illegal sand mining), 26.08.2019 O.A. No. 804/2017 (Hazardous Waste Management Rules), 28.08.2019 O.A. No. 593/2017 (requirement of 100% treatment of sewage and effluents), 11.09.2019 O.A. No. 148/2016 (utilization of treated waste water), 11.09.2019 O.A. No. 496/2016 (ground water management, 10.10.2019 O.A. No. 176/2015 (depletion of ground water in over-exploited, 14.11.2019 O.A. No. 1038/2018 (polluted industrial clusters), 19.11.2019 O.A. No. 519/2019 (legacy waste dump sites), 20.11.2019 O.A. No. 681/2018 (non-attainment cities in terms of air quality and also control of noise pollution), 06.12.2019 O.A. No. 673/2018 (351 polluted river stretches) and 18.12.2019 O.A. No. 200/2014 (pollution of river Ganga).
18. The Registry was directed to forward quarterly reports received from the Chief Secretaries as and when received to the CPCB so that CPCB may prepare a gap analysis report and present the same to this Tribunal.
19. Accordingly, the CPCB filed following reports:
“i. Report dated 09.09.2019 enclosing Annual Environment Plan for the country giving compliance of environment norms and gaps.
ii. Report dated 09.09.2019 annexing Preliminary Framework for Imposing Environmental Damage Compensation.
iii. Report dated 09.09.2019 on the subject of Methodology of Assessment of Environment Carrying Capacity.
iv. Gap Analysis report filed on 06.09.2019 on the subject of compliance of solid waste, plastic waste, bio-medical waste management, rejuvenation of identified polluted river stretches, polluted industrial clusters, non-attainment cities.
v. Report dated 24.07.2019 on Framework on national environmental training program.
vi. Status report dated 09.08.2019 on Information, Education & Communication (IEC) activities.”
Order dated 12.09.2019:
20. The Tribunal vide order dated 12.09.2019 considered the above and directed all the States/UTs to furnish information to the CPCB as follows:
“3. We have heard learned Counsel for the CPCB for future course of action and further directions required on the above subjects. He submitted that the above reports are incomplete for want of information from the States/UTs. It was elaborated during the course of hearing that information is required to be submitted in terms of following thematic areas viz.
• Compliance to Solid Waste Rules including Legacy Waste.
• Compliance to Bio-medical Waste Rules.
• Compliance to Construction & Demolition Waste.
• Compliance to Hazardous Waste Rules.
• Compliance to E-waste Rules.
• 351 Polluter Stretches in the country.
• 122 Non-attainment cities.
• 100 industrial clusters.
• Status of STPs and re-use of treated water.
• Status of CETPs/ETPs including performance.
• Ground water extraction/contamination and re-charge.
• Air pollution including noise pollution.
• Illegal sand mining.
• Rejuvenation of water bodies.
4. The information with regard to above thematic areas needs to be submitted to CPCB by the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories in terms of following:
• Current status
• Desirable level of compliance in terms of statutes.
• Gap between current status and desired levels.
• Proposal of attending the gap with time lines.
• Name and designation of designated officer for ensuring compliance to provisions under statute.
5. CPCB is permitted to file revised updated reports on the subject after collecting information from concerned States/UTs by 15.11.2019.”
Order dated 07.01.2020:
21. The status report dated 27.12.2019 with reference to the above thematic areas was considered on 07.01.2020 and it was observed:
“12. The reports give information about States who have given some information but the nature and extent of information which was required has not been furnished. Available information with regard to sewage generation and treatment shows huge gap. Grading made by the CPCB into ‘good’, ‘average’, ‘poor’ and ‘no information’ is not based on any qualitative analysis but extent of information furnished.
Instead, what is least expected is information on:
(i) solid waste management, including remediation of legacy waste in terms of earlier orders of this Tribunal,
(ii) sewage treatment and restoration of 351 polluted river stretches and
(iii) air quality management in 102 (122) non-attainment cities.
With respect to serial no. (i), the information is required with regard to the quantity of MSW generated, segregated and treated; gaps in the waste processing in terms of generation and treatment and enforcement of statutory timelines and orders of this Tribunal for bridging the gap; number of sites, and quantity of legacy waste therein and timelines for its remediation.
With respect to serial no. (ii), quantity of sewage generated and treated in the State, gap in the sewage treatment and timelines to bridge the gap including strategy for use of treated water for secondary purpose. Further, with regard to restoration of 351 polluted river stretches, the States need to furnish information about the compliance of directions including in-situ and ex-situ remediation by way of phyto-remediation/artificial wetlands, biodiversity parks or any other appropriate measure to supplement load reduction on recipient river systems.
With respect to serial no. (iii), the Chief Secretaries need to monitor and compile information on the subject of execution of action plans for containment of air pollution in terms of orders of this Tribunal and furnish the quantifiable progress/achievement to the CPCB.
13. In view of above, CPCB needs to redesign formats and secure relevant quantifiable information from the Chief Secretaries under different heads so that the Chief Secretaries are able to respond to the Tribunal on their appearance as per schedule of appearance already notified. Chairman and Member Secretary, CPCB may remain present on the dates of appearance of Chief Secretaries with relevant data.
14. The regime of compensation in terms of earlier directions will be considered after intemction with the Chief Secretaries.”
IV. RECENT ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED 25.11.2019 AND 13.01.2020 HAVING BEARING ON THE MATTER (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, W.P. No. 13029/1985):
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.11.2019 Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 13029/1985 while dealing with the pollution in Delhi and NCR held:
“4. We see Yamuna river virtually turned into a sullage. We take judicial notice of this situation. Similar is the position with Ganges. As it proceeds, industrial effluents are being poured in rivers. Sewage is also being directly put in rivers contributing to the river water pollution. We direct the Pollution Control Boards of the various States as well as the Central Pollution Control Board and various Governments to place before us the data and material with respect to various rivers in the concerned States, and what steps they are taking to curb the pollution in such rivers and to management as to industrial effluents, sewage, garbage, waste and air pollution, including the water management. We club the pending case of water management with this matter.
10. As we have noted that from last several years, the position of air pollution is worsening in spite of various orders passed by this Court. The reports and the scientific data indicating that large section of people are suffering from the dreaded diseases due to such air pollution such as Cancer, Asthma and various other diseases. Life span is adversely affected. Time has come that the various States recognise right to life is important right. Human life and health have been put in danger. In such scenario, why they should not be required to pay compensation to such persons who are being affected by inadequate arrangement to check the air pollution, non-lifting of garbage, waste which add ultimately to the pollution.
11. In this case we find that Delhi is lacking the capacity to the extent of 45% to even clean the garbage/waste which is being generated. Similar is the situation in various other places. We take note of the situation which is alarming and time has come to remind the State machineries as to their duties as all of us are meant to serve the people of this great country. Our Constitution has envisaged certain Directive Principles as they are more important rights at the discretion of the Government. The Courts are not to interfere in that, but dereliction cannot be to the extent that the very right to life is endangered by the inaction.
13. Not only the basic Fundamental Rights are being ignored with respect to air and water, problem of governance are being projected, which cannot come into the way of the basic Fundamental Rights which a human enjoys, much less to talk of the Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles contained in the State policy which have already found statutory expression in the form of Municipal laws, Prevention of Air Pollution and Water Acts and various schemes framed by the Central Government and State Governments, but we see neither the air quality has improved nor the water quality in several States, not to talk of Delhi only. We have called for the report from Delhi Government where the reports indicate that the contaminated water is being supplied and also from Bureau of Indian Standards to submit report in this regard.
15. At the same time, as we find that in spite of various orders passed by this Court, we are not able to improve the situation of air quality which we can see at least in Delhi and NCR with certainty. Time has come to require the State Governments to explain why they should not be asked to compensate the persons who are being affected by bad air quality. Obviously, the State is run by the administration, why liability should not be imposed for such a tort on the concerned machinery also of the various States which are failing to discharge their basic duties. This Court in Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, reported in (1980) 4 SCC 162 has held they have to take proper and positive action in this direction. It is their bounden duty to provide civic amenities, and also to see that self-created bankruptcy does not come in the discharge of the statutory obligation which are necessary for existence of human life. We have seen during the course of the arguments that one State is passing the burden upon the Centre and then it is stated on behalf of the Central Government that they have framed scheme and it for the State Governments to implement it. We expect not only the ‘policy making’ but also its ‘implementation’. Let the States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and the Government of NCT of Delhi respond, due to the air pollution, why the concerned Government and its concerned machinery, from top to bottom, should not be asked to compensate the citizens of Delhi and adjoining areas for various diseases which are being caused and sufferings and troubles which are being faced and the report indicates the life span is being shortened. Let show cause notice be issued to the various State Governments, and to the Chief Secretaries, to submit reply within six weeks. Let the matter be listed for consideration on 17.01.2020. The Chief Secretaries to the States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Government of NCT of Delhi be personally present on that date.”
23. Again, in the above matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.01.2020 observed:
“56 (F). With respect to waste burning compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 is necessary. The waste segregation and management is required, what are the existing facilities and deficit requirements have to be met by the Government of NCT of Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Punjab.
57. (xviii). Let the Government of NCT of Delhi work out the details with respect to 45% deficit capacity to lift the garbage and waste as there is only 55% capacity available with respect to garbage and waste generated in Delhi. Let it work out at a comprehensive plan within three months to have full (100%) capacity to deal with garbage and wastes and place it before this Court, including the implements, tools, manpower and the expenditure required in that connection.
(xxi). We direct the various State Governments through Chief Secretaries to inform this Court about the measures taken by them with respect to pouring of sewage and untreated industrial effluents in various rivers and the plan prepared by them and arrangement of funds made by them for the purpose of sewage treatment plants and existing facilities and requirements be pointed out within eight weeks.
(xxii). Let the Government of NCT of Delhi and Governments of Punjab, Haryana and UP show cause why they should not be saddled with the compensation for failure of their machinery and the concerned authorities in taking appropriate steps to prevent stubble burning and other pollution being caused.”
V. 25TH REPORT DATED 12.02.2019 OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 16TH LOK SABHA ON THE ISSUE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INCLUDING HAZARDOUS WASTE, MEDICAL WASTE AND E-WASTE:
24. The Standing Committee on Urban Development, 16 Lok Sabha in its Report dated 12.02.2019 considered the issue of solid waste management including hazardous waste, medical waste and e-waste and observed:
“It is estimated that about 65 million tonnes of waste is generated annually in the country out of which about 62 million tonnes is Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) which include organic waste, recyclables like paper, plastic, wood, glass etc. About 4550% of this MSW is biodegradable/wet/organic waste, 20-25 % is recyclable waste & about 30-35% is inert/debris.
1.2 Only about 75-80% of the municipal waste gets collected and out of this only 22-28% is processed and treated and remaining is deposited indiscriminately at dump yards. It is projected that by the year 2031, the MSW generation shall increase to 165 million tonnes and to 436 million tonnes by 2050. Eliminating, dumping and minimizing releases of hazardous chemicals by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management and reducing waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse globally have been one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that have been adopted by UN General Assembly in September, 2015.
1.3 It has been estimated that the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) spend about 60-70% of total expenditure on street sweeping, 2030% on transportation and less than 5% on municipal disposal of waste, which shows that hardly any attention is given to scientific disposal of waste. The waste collection efficiency in India ranges between 70% and 90% in major Metro cities, whereas in several smaller cities it is below 50%. However, if the current 62 million tones annual generation of MSW continues to be dumped without treatment; it will need 3.40 lakh cubic meter of landfill space every day. Considering the projected waste generation of 165 million tonnes by 2031, the requirement of land for setting up landfill for 20 years (considering 10 meter high waste pile) could be as high as 66 thousand hectares (1240 hectare per year) of precious land, which our country cannot afford to waste. Currently, of the estimated 62 million tonnes of MSW generated annually by 377 million people in urban areas, more than 80% is disposed of indiscriminately at dump yards in an unhygienic manner by the municipal authorities leading to problems of health and environmental degradation.
1.4 As per NITI Aayog, presently, out of the total MSW generated, only 29.51% is subjected to treatment which, however, is poised to improve with the Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban) scheme of Government of India being in full swing.”
VI. FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER IN TODAY'S HEARING:
25. Accordingly, we have considered the matter further after interaction with the Chief Secretary, Maharashtra and Member Secretary, CPCB. Even though all the thematic areas of the environment are significant, interaction has been limited to few selected themes, other themes being left to be considered separately on different scheduled hearings.
26. As per available statistics, there is huge gap in generation and treatment of solid and liquid waste in the country. As per CPCB report 2016 (06.12.2016), as against 61948 MLD sewage generated in urban areas in India, the treatment capacity is 23277 MLD. The deficit in capacity is 62%. There is no data of sewage generation in rural areas. As per CPCB estimate of solid waste49, about 65 million tonnes of waste is generated annually in the country out of which about 62 million tonnes is Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Only about 75-80% of the municipal waste gets collected and out of this only 22- 28% is processed and treated and remaining is deposited indiscriminately at dump yards. It is projected that by the year 2031, the MSW generation shall increase to 165 million tonnes and to 436 million tonnes by 2050. There are more than 4000 dump sites as per CPCB data50 which need to be remediated to avoid harmful impact on environment and public health.
27. All the States/UTs were directed by this Tribunal to commence remediation of legacy waste sites by 01.11.2019 Order dated 17.07.2019 O.A. No. 519/2019 Para 28. The Tribunal observed:
“28. ……We are conscious that the SWM Rules provide for a maximum period of upto five years for the purpose, however there is no reason why the same should not happen earlier, in view of serious implications on the environment and public health52.”
“30. Needless to say that potential hazard of dumpsites on public health and environment is more or less on the same pattern and earliest such dumpsites are cleared, sooner it is better for public health. Such dumpsites are undoubted source of air pollution resulting in respiratory and other diseases. Most vulnerable are the infants and the senior citizens. The right to breathe fresh air being part of right to life, delay in remedying the situation is not desirable. The plea of capping is being put forward on the ground of need for urgent remedial action, ignoring that doing so will perpetuate the adverse consequences of retaining non-biodegradable and other polluting components in the garbage eventually causing continuous damage to the soil and the ground water. Biological solutions have to be preferred over engineering solutions on the subject. However action has to be taken fast. Delay which has taken place so far is on account of inaction of the concerned authorities for which there is no justification.
31. It will also be appropriate to note that the scheme of the SWM Rules is to prevent collection of waste and instead, to ensure its segregation, treatment and disposal at the earliest and as far as possible at the source itself. If it is not done, the waste continues to be accumulated which becomes a challenge for the environment and public health. In this regard particular reference may be made to Rule 15 (zi). The authorities need to evolve a holistic strategy for integrated waste management in the municipal planning which may result in ‘zero waste’ going to the landfill in terms of the said rules53.
35. A copy of this order be sent to CPCB, all the Chief Secretaries, the MoEF&CC and MoHUA.”
28. The issue of solid and liquid waste needs to be taken seriously. We have already mentioned the available statistics on the subject. It is a matter of serious concern that legacy waste remediation has not even commenced at most of the sites even though statutory rules contemplate outer limit for completion of such remediation by 07.04.2021. Current processing of the waste generated and collected is also not taking place on regular basis. For any person travelling by train, hot spots of scattered garbage and overflowing sewage are common sights. Satisfactory sewage management also remains far cry. This unsatisfactory state of affairs must be remedied at the earliest and in a time bound manner by initiative at the highest level. Accountability needs to be fixed and consequences for failure clearly provided and enforced.
29. Before coming to the data of State of Maharashtra, we may refer to recent orders passed in respect of some other States which may be relevant for the State of Maharashtra also. On 10.01.2020, after interaction with the Chief Secretaries of UP, Punjab, Advisor to Administrator for UT Chandigarh, this Tribunal issued direction fixing timelines for compliance of the Rules and other environmental norms and consequences for non-compliance. The said directions were conveyed to all the States/UTs/Local Bodies. We propose to issue similar directions in the present case.
30. We may now note State specific scenario for Maharashtra as depicted in the earlier orders of this Tribunal when the Chief Secretary appeared and as emerging from the data now made available by CPCB based on information furnished by the State to CPCB.
I. Data noted in the earlier orders of this Tribunal:
A. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
S. No. RULES DATA 1 Solid Waste Management Number of towns to be covered : 271 Local Bodies : 271 Waste Generation : 2897.83(TDP) Collected Treatment Land filling : 22897.83 TPD : 7945.554 TDP : 14952.28 TDP Waste processing : Composting(118), Vermicompost (5), Biogas(46), RDF(14) No. of Dumpsite : 231 2 Plastic Waste Management Waste Generation : 21420.33 TPA Regulation of plastic carry bag>50 microns. Complete ban on plastic carry bags. Number of registered manufacturing units : 276 Number of unregistered units : 249 3, 6a, 6(b) 3 Biomedical Waste No of Hospitals : 63824+ Waste Generation : 61918 Waste Treatment : 61918 Common Bio-medical waste Treatment for liters : 30 No. of Captive Facilities : 251 4 Polluted River Stretches P(I)-9 P(II)-6 P(III)-14 P(IV)-10 P(V)-14 Total 53 5 Air Quality Management Non-Attainment Cities: Akola, Amravati, Aurangabad, Badlapur, Chandrapur, Jalgaon, Jalna, Kolhapur, Latur, Mumbai, Nagpur, Nashik, Navi Mumbai, Pune, Sangli, Solapur, Ulhasnagar 6 Industrial Clusters Aurangabad, Chandrapur, Chembur, Dombivali, Mahad, Nashik, Navi Mumbai, Pimpari Chinchwad, Tarapur, 7 ETP, CETP, STPs ETPs No. of industries which require ETP : 16597 No. of industries having functional ETP : 16597 No. of industries complying : 16597 No. of industries non-complying : 5 STPs No. of STPs : 120 No. of STPs complying 120 No. of under construction/proposed STPs : No STPs are under construction/proposal stage.
II. Data now made available during the hearing by the CPCB by way of presentation based on the data furnished by the State of Maharashtra alongwith its observations:
(i) Solid waste management including legacy waste.
Status of solid waste management in Maharashtra Total No. of ULBs : 384 + 07 (Cantonment Boards) MSW generated (TPD) MSW Processed (TPD) MSW Landfill (TPD) Gap (TPD) Timeline 23845 13276 (56%) 2371 (10%) 8198 TPD (34%) —
Assessment of SWM Facilities (capacity wise) Required Capacity (TPD) Existing capacity (TPD) Gap (TPD) Observations Waste Segregation Facility (MRF) 12637 4900 7737 Non-biodegradable waste @ 53% Yet to be Planned Waste Processing Biodegradable waste (Bio methanation and Composting) 11208 8500 Compost - 7500; Bio-methanation - 1000 2708 Biodegradable waste @ 47% Non biodegradable Recycling; RDF, Co-processing) 6676 1018 RDF - 1000; Recycling - 18 5658 Waste Disposal (Landfill) 5961 Not provided Inert @ 25%
Assessment of SWM Facilities (ULB wise) Required Existing Gap Timeframe Observations Waste Segregation Facility (MRF) 384 384 Nil To be provided ULBs covered; Inadequate Capacity Waste Processing Biodegradable waste (Bio-methanation & Composting) 384 Compost - 370 Bio-methanation - 28 14 (Composting proposed) December 2020 —do— Non-biodegradable (Recycling; RDF, Co-processing) 384 RDF - 11 373 To be provided All ULBs not covered Waste Disposal (Inert-Landfill) 384 18 366 (302 landfill proposed) December 2020 Capacity to be provided
Legacy Waste 1 Number of dumpsites 203 2 Quantity of Waste dumped at dumpsites 28 million ton 3 Number of dumpsites cleared 23 4 Number of dumpsites in which bio-mining has commenced 117 5 Time frame for clearing all dumpsites December 2021
(ii) Sewage management and 351 polluted river stretches.
SEWAGE MANAGEMENT IN MAHARASHTRA
TREATMENT CAPACITY Observations Sewage Generation Existing Gap Proposed Timeline Proposed capacity (for 2028), timeline to meet existing gap (21.7%) not provided. 7741 MLD 6057.84 MLD (137 STPs) 1683.16 MLD (21.7 %) 3879.5 MLD (64 STPs) September, 2028 SEWERAGE NETWORK Existing Sewerage Length Required Gap Timelines Sewage quantity to be covered till 2023 to be provided 7410.44 km 9492.86 km 2082.42 km (21.9 %) 2023 NUMBER OF STPS NUMBER OF STPS Proposed Total STPs Timeline Ensure full utilization and compliance of existing STPs 137 64 201 September, 2028 RE-USE OF TREATED SEWAGE Present Utilization Proposed Timelines Type of Use More options for Re-use to be explored 213.096 MLD (2.7 %) 280.095 MLD (3%) Not provided Industrial Clusters, Agriculture, Infrastructure Projects
Restoration of Polluted River Stretches (PRS) — O.A. NO 673/2018-Maharashtra
Priority Class (BOD Level/Range) No. of PRS No. of RRC Approved Action Plans Received Date of Receipt of Action Plans Action Plans Approved by CPCB Task Team Observations I (BOD > 30 mg/l) 9 9 30.1.2019 (within timelines) 9 II (BOD : 20-30 mg/l) 6 6 6 Conditional approval - Budget estimates Responsible agencies III (BOD : 10-20 mg/l) 14 14 Under review at CPCB IV (BOD : 6-10 mg/l) 10 10 V (BOD : 3-6 mg/l) 14 14 Grand Total 53 53 15
(iii) Air quality management in 122 non-attainment cities.
Status of Actions for Non attainment cities (NACs)
Number of Non Attainment Cities 18 ((1) Akola (2) Amravati (3) Aurangabad (4) Badlapur (5) Chandrapur (6) Jalgaon (7) Jalna (8) Kolhapur (9) Latur (10) Mumbai (11) Nagpur (12) Nashik (13) Navi Mumbai (14) Pune (15) Sangli (16) Solapur (17) Ulhasnagar (18) Thane) Approved Not approved Under Review 17 01* 0 Action Plan Status * ∘ City plan of Thane not approved - need revision. ∘ Source Apportionment - Not proposed ∘ CAAQMS not as per criteria. ∘ Plans lack defined timelines for completion of specific actions ∘ Time period for completion of actions to be restricted to six months for short term and maximum 03 years for long term. Activities requiring more time should be explained with reasoning. ∘ All traffic congestion points in city to be identified and decongestion plan to be part of plan.
Source Apportionment Studies Initiated in 17 cities (except Thane) Strengthening of Monitoring Network Timeframe - November 20, 2020 GRAP GRAP to be prepared and implementation ensured Development of Public Grievance Redressal portal (PGRP) - Developed for Mumbai, Navi Mumbai & Badlapur CPCB observation ∘ Installation of the requisite number of monitoring stations within timeframe to be ensured, ∘ Development of Public Grievance Redressal Portal (PGRP) ∘ Consideration to Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) ∘ Micro level planning for each action in city plan ∘ Submission of implementation status quarterly
ANALYSIS:
Solid Waste Management:
31. We find that though steps are claimed to have been taken for legacy waste remediation, the timeline proposed for clearing the dump sites is December 2021 which is against the statutory rules as well as the orders of this Tribunal and needs to be preponed.
32. There remains a gap of 8198 TPD (34% of total generation) in terms of current generation and treatment of solid waste which is endangering environment, adversely affecting public health and posing serious threat to life. No firm commitment to remedy the gap consistent with the statutory Rules specially the timelines has been put forth, as expected in terms of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal. Thus, suitable remedial measures need to be adopted in the matter.
Sewage Management:
33. As regards sewage management, there is a gap of 1683.16 MLD (21.7% of generation) in generation and treatment capacity, which needs to be remedied in terms of directions already issued by this Tribunal and the observations of CPCB quoted above, including that values of faecal coliform are exceptionally high, posing danger to the human health and life. The timeline proposed for bridging the gap between sewage generation and treatment is upto September 2028, with no interim arrangement. Discharge of untreated sewage is statutorily prohibited under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974 as well as under the orders of this Tribunal. Longer timelines proposed need to be revised so as to be consistent with the directions of this Tribunal which are already in force and interim measures by way of in-situ/ex-situ remediation need to be taken forthwith. Untreated waste water and raw sewage being continuously discharged in water bodies needs to be stopped. As already observed, prompt action needs to be taken to reduce pollution load on recipient river systems by way of phyto-remediation/bio-remediation of any other alternative low capital intensive natural remediation processes and to successfully tap the sewage containing storm water drains so as to channelize the untreated sewage to central STP. Phytoremediation/bio-remediation or other such remediation must commence at or nearest the source of generation as a supplement to setting up of STPs as an interim measure to reduce the load of pollution on recipient water bodies before 31.03.2020. Setting up of STPs must also commence before the said date so as to complete the same by 31.03.2021. In this regard, compensation regime has already been laid down which has to be strictly followed. The timelines and compensation regime already laid down are:
i. Interim measures for phytoremediation/bioremediation etc in respect of 100% sewage to reduce the pollution load on recipient water bodies — 31.03.2020. Compensation is payable for failure to do so at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per drain by concerned Local Bodies/States (in terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018) w.e.f. 01.04.2020.
ii. Commencement of setting up of STPs — 31.03.2020. Compensation is payable for failure to do so at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per STP by concerned Local Bodies/States (in terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018) w.e.f. 01.04.2020.
iii. Commissioning of STPs — 31.03.2021. Compensation is payable for failure to do so at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per month per STP by concerned Local Bodies/States (in terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018) w.e.f. 01.04.2021.
34. The Chief Secretary must ensure adverse entries in the service records of erring officers in respect of liquid waste management atleast from 01.04.2020.
Likewise, remediation work of legacy dump sites must commence at the earliest and adverse entries in ACRs of concerned officers if the remediation does not commence by 31.03.2020 which may be ensured by the Chief Secretary.
To save time, standard specifications and service providers must be notified by the Chief Secretary on the websites of the State within one month from today. The Chief Secretary may take such opinion as may be necessary for the purpose.
Compliance reports may be filed quarterly and first such report may be filed by 31.03.2020 with a copy to the CPCB. CPCB may furnish gap analysis report.
Restoration of Polluted River Stretches:
35. Similarly, with regard to restoration of polluted river stretches, the execution of action plans is required in right earnest and holistic manner. Considering that implementation requires inter-sectoral consideration and there is a need for a robust institutional mechanism to implement it, this needs to be overseen by the Chief Secretary.
Air Quality Management:
36. With regard to air quality management in non-attainment cities, execution of action plans has to be duly ensured as per laid down timelines by making adequate budgetary provision in accordance with the orders of this Tribunal by clearly defined monitoring and enforcement strategies and fixing responsibilities for failures on the officers. Absence of due execution of action plans is worsening the situation on account of resultant pollution. The execution of action plan needs to be supervised by the Chief Secretary of the State.
VII. DIRECTIONS:
37. In view of above, consistent with the directions referred to in Para 29 issued on 10.01.2020 in the case of UP, Punjab and Chandigarh which have also been repeated for other States in matters already dealt with, we direct:
a. In view of the fact that most of the statutory timelines have expired and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal to comply with Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 remain unexecuted, compensation scale is hereby laid down for continued failure after 31.03.2020. The compliance of the Rules requires taking of several steps mentioned in Rule 22 from Serial No. 1 to 10 (mentioned in para 12 above). Any such continued failure will result in liability of every Local Body to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per month per Local Body for population of above 10 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakh per month per Local Body for population between 5 lakhs and 10 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh per month per other Local Body from 01.04.2020 till compliance. If the Local Bodies are unable to bear financial burden, the liability will be of the State Governments with liberty to take remedial action against the erring Local Bodies. Apart from compensation, adverse entries must be made in the ACRs of the CEO of the said Local Bodies and other senior functionaries in Department of Urban Development etc. who are responsible for compliance of order of this Tribunal.
b. Legacy waste remediation was to ‘commence’ from 01.11.2019 in terms of order of this Tribunal dated 17.07.2019 in O.A. No. 519/2019 para 28 give the progress relating to management of all the legacy waste dumpsites. Remediation work on all other dumpsites may commence from 01.11.2019 and completed preferably within six months and in no case beyond one year. Substantial progress be made within six months. We are conscious that the SWM Rules provide for a maximum period of upto five years for the purpose even though statutory timeline for ‘completing’ the said step is till 07.04.2021 (as per serial no. 11 in Rule 22), which direction remains unexecuted at most of the places. Continued failure of every Local Body on the subject of commencing the work of legacy waste sites remediation from 01.04.2020 till compliance will result in liability to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per month per Local Body for population of above 10 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakh per month per Local Body for population between 5 lakhs and 10 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh per month per other Local Body. If the Local Bodies are unable to bear financial burden, the liability will be of the State Governments with liberty to take remedial action against the erring Local Bodies. Apart from compensation, adverse entries must be made in the ACRs of the CEO of the said Local Bodies and other senior functionaries in Department of Urban Development etc. who are responsible for compliance of order of this Tribunal.
c. Further, with regard to thematic areas listed above in para 20, steps be ensured by the Chief Secretaries in terms of directions of this Tribunal especially w.r.t. plastic waste, biomedical waste, construction and demolition waste which are linked with solid waste treatment and disposal. Action may also be ensured by the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs with respect to remaining thematic areas viz. hazardous waste, e-waste, polluted industrial clusters, reuse of treated water, performance of CETPs/ETPs, groundwater extraction, groundwater recharge, restoration of water bodies, noise pollution and illegal sand mining.
d. The compensation regime already laid down for failure of the Local Bodies and/or Department of Irrigation and Public Health/In-charge Department to take action for treatment of sewage in terms of observations in para 33 above will result in liability to pay compensation as already noted above which is reproduced for ready reference:
i. Interim measures for phytoremediation/bioremediation etc in respect of 100% sewage to reduce the pollution load on recipient water bodies - 31.03.2020. Compensation is payable for failure to do so at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per drain by concerned Local Bodies/States (in terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018) w.e.f. 01.04.2020.
ii. Commencement of setting up of STPs — 31.03.2020. Compensation is payable for failure to do so at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per STP by concerned Local Bodies/States (in terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018) w.e.f. 01.04.2020.
iii. Commissioning of STPs — 31.03.2021. Compensation is payable for failure to do so at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per month per STP by concerned Local Bodies/States (in terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018) w.e.f. 01.04.2021.
e. Compensation in above terms may be deposited with the CPCB for being spent on restoration of environment which may be ensured by the Chief Secretaries’ of the States/UTs.
f. An ‘Environment Monitoring Cell’ may be set up in the office of Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs within one month from today, if not already done for coordination and compliance of above directions which will be the responsibility of the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs.
g. Compliance reports in respect of significant environmental issues may be furnished in terms of order dated 07.01.2020 quarterly with a copy to CPCB.
The Chief Secretary, Maharashtra may remain present in person for further review tentatively on 11.09.2020.
A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Maharashtra and the CPCB by e-mail.