# M.C. MEHTA .) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS - **Citation:** [1988] 2 S.C.R. 530 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1988-01-12 - **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 3727 of 1985 - **Bench:** E.S. Venkataramiah, K.N. Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-c-mehta-v-union-of-india-ors-9869 - **Pages:** 26 ## Headnote In re. control, prevention and abatement of pollution of Ganga water-In Kanpur, U. P. -Responsibility of the municipal body in respect thereof c This Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., 119871 4 S.C.C. 463 had issued certain directions with regard to the industries in which the business of tanning was being carried on near Kanpur on the -l banks of the River Ganga. On that occasion, the Court had directed that the case in respect of the municipal bodies and the industries which were responsible for the pollution of the water in the river Ganga would D be taken up next, and accordingly, the Court took up for consideration this case against the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika, since it was found that "' Kanpur was one of the biggest cities on the banks of the river Ganga. Under the laws governing the local bodies, the nagar Mahapalikas and Municipal Boards were primarily responsible for the maintenance E of cleanliness in the areas under their jurisdiction and the protection of ;,..; their environments. Under the water (Prevention and Control of Polinlion) Act, 1974 (the 'Water Act') provisions had been made for the establishment of Boards for the prevention and control of water polio- ' lion, etc. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, contained provisions y relating to the control, prevention and abatement of pollution of water. F Although Parliament and the State Legislature had thus enacted -,!( laws, imposing duties on the Central and State Boards and the municipalities for the prevention and control of pollution of water, no adequate action had been taken pursuant to many of their provisions. 274.50 million litres a day of sewage water was being discharged into G the river Ganga from the city of Kanpur, which was the highest in the ~ State of U .P. Sewer cleaning had never been done systematically in Kanpur, and there was mal-functioning and choking of the city sewer- --> age. Pollution of water in the river Ganga was of the highest degree at Kanpur, and a large extent of misery, sickness and death due to infectious diseases arose out of water supplies. The petitioner filed this writ H petition as a Public Interest Litigation against the public nuisance 530 \ ' M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 531 caused by the serious pollution of the river Ganga, for protecting the A lives of the people using the Ganga water. Disposing of the petition, the Court, HELD: The petitioner before the Court was no doubt not a riparian owner. He was a person interested in protecting the lives of the people who made use of the water flowing in the river Ganga and his right to maintain the petition could not be disputed. The nuisance caused by the pollution was a public nuisance, wide-spread in range and indiscriminate in its effect, and it would not be reasonable to expect any ··particular person to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the community at large. The petition was entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. On the facts and.in the circumstances of the case, the Court was of the view that the petitioner was entitled to move the Court in order to enforce the statutory provisions which imposed duties on the municipal authorities and the Boards under the water Act, on account of failure of which to obey the statutory duties for several years, the water in the River Ganga at Kanpur had become so much polluted that it could no longer be used by the people for drinking or bathing. The Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur had to bear the major responsibility for the pollution of the river near the Kanpur city. The construction of certain works, undertaken under the Ganga Action Plan at Kanpur to impron the sewerage system and prevent pollution of the water in the river Ganga, were going on at a snail's pace. The Court expected the authorities concerned would complete those works within the target dates mentioned in their counter-affidavits. The Court noticed that the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika had not yet submitted its proposals for sewage treatment work ## Text _Characters 0–39,777 of 58,329. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39777 for what follows._ A M.C. MEHTA .) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ,.. JANUARY 12, 1988 B [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH. JJ.) In re. control, prevention and abatement of pollution of Ganga water-In Kanpur, U. P. -Responsibility of the municipal body in respect thereof c This Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., 119871 4 S.C.C. 463 had issued certain directions with regard to the industries in which the business of tanning was being carried on near Kanpur on the -l banks of the River Ganga. On that occasion, the Court had directed that the case in respect of the municipal bodies and the industries which were responsible for the pollution of the water in the river Ganga would D be taken up next, and accordingly, the Court took up for consideration this case against the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika, since it was found that "' Kanpur was one of the biggest cities on the banks of the river Ganga. Under the laws governing the local bodies, the nagar Mahapalikas and Municipal Boards were primarily responsible for the maintenance E of cleanliness in the areas under their jurisdiction and the protection of ;,..; their environments. Under the water (Prevention and Control of Polinlion) Act, 1974 (the 'Water Act') provisions had been made for the establishment of Boards for the prevention and control of water polio- ' lion, etc. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, contained provisions y relating to the control, prevention and abatement of pollution of water. F Although Parliament and the State Legislature had thus enacted -,!( laws, imposing duties on the Central and State Boards and the municipalities for the prevention and control of pollution of water, no adequate action had been taken pursuant to many of their provisions. 274.50 million litres a day of sewage water was being discharged into G the river Ganga from the city of Kanpur, which was the highest in the ~ State of U .P. Sewer cleaning had never been done systematically in Kanpur, and there was mal-functioning and choking of the city sewer- --> age. Pollution of water in the river Ganga was of the highest degree at Kanpur, and a large extent of misery, sickness and death due to infectious diseases arose out of water supplies. The petitioner filed this writ H petition as a Public Interest Litigation against the public nuisance 530 \ ' M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 531 caused by the serious pollution of the river Ganga, for protecting the A lives of the people using the Ganga water. Disposing of the petition, the Court, HELD: The petitioner before the Court was no doubt not a riparian owner. He was a person interested in protecting the lives of the people who made use of the water flowing in the river Ganga and his right to maintain the petition could not be disputed. The nuisance caused by the pollution was a public nuisance, wide-spread in range and indiscriminate in its effect, and it would not be reasonable to expect any ··particular person to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the community at large. The petition was entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. On the facts and.in the circumstances of the case, the Court was of the view that the petitioner was entitled to move the Court in order to enforce the statutory provisions which imposed duties on the municipal authorities and the Boards under the water Act, on account of failure of which to obey the statutory duties for several years, the water in the River Ganga at Kanpur had become so much polluted that it could no longer be used by the people for drinking or bathing. The Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur had to bear the major responsibility for the pollution of the river near the Kanpur city. The construction of certain works, undertaken under the Ganga Action Plan at Kanpur to impron the sewerage system and prevent pollution of the water in the river Ganga, were going on at a snail's pace. The Court expected the authorities concerned would complete those works within the target dates mentioned in their counter-affidavits. The Court noticed that the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika had not yet submitted its proposals for sewage treatment works to the State Board constituted under Water Act, and directed that the mal:apalika should submit its proposals to the State Board within six months (from the date of this judgment). [551H; 552A-F] The Court further directed; B c D E F (i) The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should take action under .the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, G or the relevant bye-laws made thereunder to prevent pollution of the water in the river Ganga by waste accumulated at the Targe number of dairies in Kanpur havin~ about 80,000 cattle. The dairies might either be shifted outside the city so that the waste at the dairies did not ultimately reach the river Ganga, or, in the alternative, the Mahapalika might arrange for the removal of the waste by motor vehicles, in which H 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R. A event the owners of the diaries could not claim any compensation. The Mahapalika should immediately take action to prevent collection of manure at private manure pits inside the city; [552G-H; 553A) (ii) The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should take immediate steps to increase the size of the sewers in the labour colonies, so B that sewage might be carried smoothly through the sewerage system, and wherever sewera~e line was not yet constructed, steps should be taken to lay it; [553B] (iii) Immediate action should also be taken by the Kanpur Nagar J Mahapalika to construct sufficient number of public latrines anll"'"11 C urinals to prevent defecation by people on the open land. The proposal to levy any .charge for use of such latrines and urinals shall be dropped as that :would be a reason for poor people not to use the public latrines and urinals. The cost of maintenance of cleanliness of those latrines and urinals had to be borne by the Mahapalika. [553C] D The Court was of the view that since the problem of pollution of the water in the river Ganga had become very acute, the High Court should not .ordinarily grant stay of criminal proceedings in cases where the .Board constituted under the Water Act initiated any proceedings to prosecute industrialists or other persons who polluted the water in the Ganga, as the stay orders on petitions under section 482 of the Code of ):', Criminal Procedure, 1973, frustrated the attempt of the Board to enforce the provisions of the Water Act, and further, even ifsuch an order of stay was made in any extraordinary case, the High Court should dispose of the case within a short period, say about two months from the date of the institution of the case, and further, should take up for hearing all the cases where such orders had been issued under section f 482, Cr.P.C., staying prosecutions under the Water Act. [553E·Gl The Court further directed that the practice of throwing corpses and semi-burnt corpses into the river Ganga should be immediately brought to an end. Steps should be taken by the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika and the police authorities to ensure that the dead bodies or fr half-burnt bodies were not thrown into the river Ganga. [SS3H; S54A) In future; application for licences to establish new industries should be refused unless adequate provision had been made for the treatment of trade effiuents flowing out of the factories, and immediate action should be taken against the existing industries found responsible H for the pollution of water. [554B] j .I \. f. M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 533 Having regard to the grave consequences of the Pollution of water A and air and need for protecting and improving the natural environment, considered to be one of the fundamental duties under the Constitution, it was the duty of the Central Government to direct all the educational institutions throughout India to teach at least for one hour in a week lessons on the protection and improvement of the natural environment B including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life in the first ten classes. The Central Government should get the text books written for the said purpose and distributed to the educational institutions free of cost. Training of teachers, who teach this subject, by the introduction of ho rt term courses for such training shall also be considered. This ·should be done throughout India. [554C-E] The above directions of the Court would apply mutatis mutandis to all the other Mahapalikas and Municipalities, having jurisdiction over the areas through which the river Ganga flows. [SSSC] c OBSERVATION: The children should be taught about the need D ~ for maintaining cleanliness, of the houses both inside and outside and of the streets in which they live. Clean surroundings lead to healthy body and healthy mind. [554EI In order to rouse amongst the people the consciousness of cleanli- .,,. ness of environments, the Government of India and the Governments of the States and the Union Territories may consider the desirability .of organising 'keep the city clean' week (Nagar Nirmalikarana Saptaha) .; and 'keep the village clean' week (Gram Nirmalikarana Saptaha) in every city, town and village throughout India at least once a year. ~l>nring that week, the entire city, town or village should be kept, as far as possible, clean tidy and free from pollution of land, water and air. -,.. The organisation of the week should be entrusted to the Nagar Mahapalikas, Town Municipalities, Municipal Corporation, Village Panchayats or such other authorities, having jurisdiction over the area in question. If the authorities decide to organise such a week it may not be celebrated in the same week throughout India hut may be staggered , ~ depending upon the convenience of the particular city, town or village. During that week, all the citizens, including the members of the execu- \.- live, Parliament, State Legislatures and Judiciary may be requested to co-operate with the local authorities and take part in the celebrations by rendering free personal service. This would surely create a national awareness of the problems faced by the people by the appalling allround deterioration of the environment which ti~ today. (554F-H; !l§SA-B] E F G H 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R. A M. (;. Mehta v. Union of India & Others, [1987] 4 S.C.C. 463 and B Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association v. British Celanese Limited, [1953] Chancery 149. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 3727 of 1985. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) Petitioner-in-person. B. Datta, Additional Solictor General, R.K. Jain, Vinod Bobd R.N. Trivedi, K.N. Bhat, Tapash Ray, B.R.L. Iyenger, R.P. Singh, C R.P. Kapur; Ravinder Narain, S. Sukumaran, C.B. Singh, S.K. j \ Dhingra, P.K. Jain, D.N. Goburdhan, Arvind Kumar, Ms. Laxmi Arvind, Vinee.t Kumar. Deepak K. Thakur, T.V. S. N. Chari, Ms. Vrinda Grover, Badri Nath, Rakesh Khanna, Mukul Mudgal, A.K. Ghose, M.M. Gangadeb, l>robir Mirlra, Sushil Kumar Jain, Suryaltant, Pappy T. Mathews, Mrs, Marnta Kachhawaha, Mrs. Shobha ' D Dikshit, G.S. Misra, S.R. Srivastava, Parijat Sinha, R. Mohan, Ms . E ·Bina Gupta, Ranjit Kumar, Krishna Kumar, .R.C. Verma, Arnn Minocha, Sri Narain, E.C. Agrawala, S.R. Setia, H.K. Puri, T.S. Rana, Pramod Swamp, Ashok Grover, S. Markandeya, Swarup. Ms, Lalita Kohli, K.C. Dua, Rajbirbal, R.A. Gupta and Ms. A. Subhashi?i for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by \ .... .. ,., ~ VENKATARAMIAH, J. By our judgment dated September 22, I 1987 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others, [1987] 4 S.C.C. 463,y we issued certain directions with regard to the industries in which the F business of tanning was being carried on at J ajmau near Kanpur on the c¥ banks of the river Ganga. On that occasion we directed that the case in respect .. of the municipal bodies and the industries which were res· ponsible for the. pollution of the water in the river Ganga would be taken up for consideration on the next date of hearing. Accordingly, we took up for consideration first the case against the municipal G ~· bodies. Since it was found that Kanpur was one of the biggest cities on the banks of the river Ganga, we took up for conSideratiml the case in -4 respect of the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika. The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika is established under the provisions cif the Uttar l>radesh ,Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyain, 1959 H (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam'), Sub-section. (3) of section ' -. "' ' M.C.. MEHTA v. V.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.I 535 1 of the Adhiniyam, which is to be found in its lst Chapter, provides that the lst Chapter of the Adhiniyam shall come into operation at once and the remaining provisions in relation to a city shall come into operation from such date as the State .Government may by notification in the official Gazette appoint in that behalf and different dates may be appointed for different provisions. In exercise of the powers conferred by the said sub-section and in continuation of a notification dated September 28, 1959 bringing into operation sections 579 and 580 of the Adhiniyam, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh was pleased to issue a notification dated January 18, 1960 appointing the lst day of February, 1960 as the date on which the remaining provisions of the Adhiniyam a'.nd the three Schedules, appended thereto, would come into operation in relation lo the cities ofKanpur, Allahabad, Varanasi, Agra and Lucknow, as constituted under section 3 of the Adhiniyam. The duties and powers of the Mahapalika and Mahapalika authorities are set out in Chapter V of the Adhiniyam. Clauses (iii), (vii) and (viii) of section 114 of the Adhiniyam, which incorporates the obligatory duties of the Mahapalika, read as follows: "114. Obligatory duties of the Mahapalika-It shall be incumbent on the Mahapalika to make reasonable and adequate provision, by any means or measures which it is lawfully competent to it to use or to take, for each of the following matters, namely,- (iii) the collection and rernoval of sewage, offensive matter and rubbish and treatment and disposal thereof including establishing and maintaining farm or factory; A B c D E F (vii) the management and maintenance of all Mahapalika waterworks and the construction or acquisition of new works necessary for a sufficient supply of water for public and private purposes; G (viii) guarding from pollution water used for human consumption and preventing polluted water from being so used; ,, H .................................................... 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R. A Sections 251, 388, 396, 297, 398, 405, and 407 of the Adhiniyam j read as follows: c D 0 H "251. Provision of means for disposal of sewageThe Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may, for the purpose of re· ceiving, treating, storing, disinfecting, distributing or otherwise disposing of sewage, construct any work within or without the City or purchase or take on lease any land, building, engine, material or apparatus either within or without the City or enter into any arrangement with any person for any period not exceeding twenty years for the removal or disposal of sewage within or without the City. 388. Provision may be made by Mukhya Nagar Adhikari for collection, etc., of excrementitious and polluted matter-(1) The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may give public notice of his intention to provide, in such portion of the City as he may specify, for the collection, removal and disposal by Mahapalika agency, of all excrementitious and polluted matter from privies, urinals, and cess-pools, and thereupon it shall be the duty of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari to take measures for the daily collection, removal and disposal of such matter from all premises situated in such portion of the City. (2) In any such portion as is mentioned in sub-section ,., (1) and in any premises, wherever situated, in which there is a water-closet or privy connected with a mahapalika r/ drain, it shall not be lawful, except with the written perrnis· sion of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, for any person who is ,l( not employed by or on behalf of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari to discharge any of the duties of scavengers. 396. Removal of carcasses of dead animals-( I) It shall be the duty of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari to provide -4 for the removal of the carcasses of all animals dying within the City. (2) The occupier of any premises in or upon which ... M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. (VENKATARAMIAH, J.l 537 any animal shall die or in or upon which the carcass of any animal shall be found, and the person having the charge of any animal which dies in the street or in any open place. shall, within three hours after the death of such animal or. if the death occurs at night within three hours after sunrise. report the death of such animal at the nearest office of the Mahapalika Health Department. (3) For every carcass removed by mahapalika agency, whether from any private premises or from public street or place, a fee for the removal of such amount as shall be fixed by the Mukhya Nagar A:dhikari shall be paid by the owner of the animal, or, if the owner is not known. by the occupier of the premises in or upon which, or by the person in whose charge, the said animal died. 397. Prohibition of cultivation, use of manure, or irrigation injurious to health-If the Director of Medical and Health Services or the Civil Surgeon or the N agar Swasthya Adhikari certifies that the cultivation of any description of crops or the use of any kind of manure or the irrigation of land in any specified mannerA B c D (a) in a place within the limits of a City is injurious or facilitates practices which are injurious to the health of E persons dwelling in the neighbourhood, or (b) in a place within or beyond the limits of a City is likely to contaminate the water-supply of such City or otherwise render it unfit for drinking purpose, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may by public notice prohibit the cultivation of such crop, the use of such manure or the use of the method of irrigation so reported to be injurious, or impose such conditions with respect thereto as may prevent the injury or contamination: Provided that when, on any land in respect of which such notice is issued, the act prohibited has been practised F G in the ordinary course of husbandry for the five successive years next preceding the date of prohibition, compensation shall be paid from the Mahapalika Fund to all persons interested therein for damage caused to them by such H prohibition. A B c D F 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] 2 S.C.R. 398. Power to require owners to clear away noxious vegetation-The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may, by notice, require the owner or occupier of any land to clear away and remove any vegetation or undergrowth which may be injurious to health or offensive to the neighbourhood. 405. Power to require removal of nuisance arising from tanks, etc.-The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may by notice require the owner or occupier of any land or build,. ing to cleanse, repair, cover, fill up or drain off a private well, tank, reservoir. pool, depression or excavation therein which may appear to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari to be injurious to health or offensive to the neighbourhood: Provided that the owner or occupier may require the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari to acquire at the expense of the Mahapalika or otherwise provide, any land or rights in land necessary for the purpose of effecting drainage ordered under this section. 407. Any place may at any time be inspected for purpose of preventing spread of dangerous disease-The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may at any time, by day or day night, without notice or after giving such notice of his intention as shall in the circumstances, appear to him to be reasonable, inspect any place in which any dangerous disease is reputed or suspected to exist, and take such measures as he shall think fit to prevent the spread of the said disease beyond such place." The above provisions deal with the specific duties of the Nagar Mahapalika or the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari appointed under the Adhiniyam with regard to the disposal of sewage and protection of the environment in or around the City to which the Adhiniyam applies. ' - ..... ·"' M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. (VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 541 water, works for the purification thereof and the system for the disA posal of sewage or trade effluents or in connection with the grant of any consent as required by the Water Act; (vi) to evolve economical and reliable methods of treatment of sewage and trade effluents, having regard to the peculiar conditions of soils, climate and water resources of different regions and more especially the prevailing flow characteristics of water in streams and wells which render it impossible B to "attain even the minimum degree of dilution; and (vii) to lay down standards of treatment of sewage and trade effluents to be discharged into any particular stream taking into account the minimum fair weather dilution available in that stream and the tolerance limits of ·pollution permissible in the water of the stream, after the discharge of such effluents. The State Board has been given-certain executive'powC ers to implement the provisions of the Water Act. Sections 20, 21 and 23 of the Water Act confer power on the State Board to obtain information necessary for the implementation of the provisions of the Water Act, to take samples of effluents and to analyse them and to follow the procedure prescribed in connection therewith and the power of entry and inspection for the purpose of enforcing the proviD sions of the Water Act. Section 24 of the Water Act prohibits the use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matters etc. contrary to the provisions incorporated in that section. Section 32 of the Water Act confers the power on the State Board to take certain emergency measures in case of pollution of stream or well. Where it is apprehended by a Board, that the water in any stream or well is likely to be polluted by E reason Of the disposal of any matter therein or of any likely disposal of any matter therein, or otherwise, the Board may under section 33 of the Water Act make an application to a court not inferior to that of a Presidency.Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, for restraining the person who is likely to cause such pollution from so causing. F > The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which has also been referred to in out earlier judgment, also contains certain provisions relating to the control, prevention and abatement of pollution of water and one significant provision in that Act is what is contained in section 17 thereof, which provides that where an offence under that Act is • , committed by any Department of Government, the Head of that G Department shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and is liable to ;. be punished. It is unfortunate that although Parliament and the State Legislature have enacted the aforesaid laws imposing duties on the Central and State Boards and the municipalities for prevention and control of H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R. A pollution of water, many of those provisions have just remained on _) paper without any adequate action being taken pursuant thereto. After the above petition was filed and notice was sent to the Uttar r -" Pradesh State Board constituted under the Water Act, an affidavit has been filed before this Court by Dr. G.N. Misra, Scientific Officer of B the U.P. Pollution Control Board setting out the information which the Board was able to collect regarding the measures taken by the several local bodies and also by the U.P. Pollution Control Board in order to prevent the pollution of the water flowing in the river Ganga. A copy of the report relating to the inspection made at Kanpur on 23.11.87/24.11.87 by Shri Tanzar Ullah Khan, Assistant Environmen-. ..,. ta! Engineer and Shri A.K. Tiwari, Junior Engineer enclosed to the C counter-affidavit as Exhibit K-5 reads thus: I) E F G H "The inspection made on 23.11.87 /24.1.87 alongwith Sri A.K. Tiwari, Junior Engineer. Following are the facts observed at the time of inspection. 1. Kanpur town is situated on the southern bank of river Ganges. 2. The present population of the town is approximately 20 lacs. 3. The city is covered with piped water supply. 4. The city has developed between river Ganges on the north side and river Pandu on the south side. G.T. Road divides the city into two halves. In the north side most of the area is covered by sewerage system and the sullage/sewage is discharged without treatment into river Ganges through 17 nalas including sewerage by-pass channel at J ajmau. In the south side there is no sewerage system and the sewage/sullage are discharged without treatment into river Pandu through 5 nalas. River Pandu joins river Ganges near Fatehpur(Sketch enclosed). 5. The Kanpur Nagar mahapalika has not yet submitted any proposal of sewage treatment works to the Board. 1 M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.! 543 6. Mr. Ikramur Rahman, A.E. Nagar Mahapalika told the Kanpur town is covered under Ganga Action Plan and following are the proposals- (A) U.P. !al Nigam A (1) Re-modelling of sewage pumping station at B Jajmau and improvement to sewage farm. (2) Nala Tapping. (3) Sewage Treatment Plant. (B)Kanpur !al Sansthan c (1) Cleaning of Trunk and main sewers. ( C) Integrated Environmental and sanitary Engineer project is being executed under the Dutch Assistance in JaD jmauArea. (1) Crash Programme (is to remove deficiencies in the existing sanitary facilities) (2) Laying of Industrial sewer. (3) U .A.S.B. Sewage Treatment Plant. E Sd/- (A.K. TIWARI) J.E. Sd/- (TANZAR ULLAH KHAN) ASSTT. ENVIRONMENTAL F ENGINEER." Appendix A/1 to 'An Action Plan for Prevention of Pollution of the Ganga' gives the following particulars relating to the quantity of " sewerage generated in the City of Kanpur which is discharged into the river Ganga and other relevant matters: G Population in 1981 KA NP UR Estimated water supply in 1981 Estimated sewage generated (70% of the water supply to the city Treatment H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R. A 16.39 lacs 392.14 million litres a day 274.50 million litres a day Nil It is thus seen that 274.50 million litres a day of sewage water is being discharged into the river Ganga from the city of Kanpur, which B is the highest in the State of Uttar Pradesh and next only to the city of Calcutta which discharges 580.17 million litres a day of sewage water J into the river Ganga. Para 4 of the affidavit filed by Shri Jai Shanker Tewari, Executive engineer of Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika reads thus: .. "4. That the pollution in river Ganga from Kanpur is occurring because of following reasons: c D E F G H (i) About 16 nalas collecting sullage water, sewage, textile waste, power plant waste and tannery effluents used to be discharged without any treatment into the river. However some N alas have been trapped now. (ii) The dairies located in the city have a cattle population of about 80.000. The dung, fodder waste and other refuse from this cattle population is quantitatively more than the sullage from the city of human population of over 20 lakhs. All this finds its way into the sewerage system and the nalas in the rainy season. It has also totally choked many branches of sewers and trunk sewers resulting in the overflow of the system. (iii) The night soil collected from the unsewered areas of the city and thrown into the nalas. (iv) There are more than 80 tanneries in Jajmau whose effluent used to be directly discharged into the river. (v) The total water supply in Kanpur is about 55 million gallons pe~ day. After use major part of it goes down the drains, nalas and sewers; sewage is taken to Jajmau sewage pumping station and a part of it is being supplied to sewage farms after diluting it with raw ganges water and the remaining part is discharged into the river. (vi) Dhobi Ghats. (vii) Defecation by e~onomically weaker sections." M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, l.) 545 ,._ The affidavit further states that the U.P. Ja! Nigam, the U.P. Water A Pollution Control Board, the National Environmental Engineering , Research Institute, the Central Leather Research Institute, the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika, the Kanpur Development Authority and the Kanpur J al Sans than have started taking action to minimise the pollution of the river Ganga. It is also stated therein that the finaneial assistance is being provided by the Central Ganga Authority through Ganga Project D.irectorate, State Government, the World Bank, the Dutch Government etc. for implementing the said measures. The said B affidavit gives information about the several works undertaken at Kanpur for minimising the pollution of the river Ganga. It also states that Rs.493.63 lacs had been spent on those works between the years 1985 and 1987 and that the total allocation of funds by the Central C Ganga Authority for Kanpur is Rs.3694.94 lacs and that upto the end .- of .tb.e current financial year it is proposed to spend Rs.785.58 lacs ( 1985 to 1987-88) towards various schemes to be completed under Ganga Action Plan. The affidavit points out that in Kanpur City sewer cleaning has never been done systematically and in a planned way except that some sewers were cleaned by the U .P. Jal Nigam around D !970. The main reasons for mal-functioning and choking of the city sewerage, according to the affidavit, are (i) throwing or discharging of solids, clothes, plastics, metals etc. into the sewerage system; (ii) throwing of cow dung from dairies which are located in every part of the city which consists of about 80,000 cattle; (iii) laying of under-sized sewers specially in labour colonies; (iv) throwing of solid wastes and E malba from construction of buildings into sewers through manholes; ( v) non-availability of mechanical equipment for sewer cleaning J. works; and (vi) shortage of funds for proper maintenance. It is . asserted that the discharge of untreated effluents into the river Ganga '--..: will be stopped upto 80% by March, 1988. Ii> Shri M.C. Mehta, the petitioner herein, drew our attention to the Progress Report of the Ganges Action Plan (July 1986-January 1987) prepared by the Industrial Toxicology Research Centre, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research. At page 20 of the said report the details of the analysis of the Ganga water samples collected during F ~ August, 1986 to January, 1987 from Uttar Pradesh region are furG nished. That report shows that the pollution of the water in the river .... Ganga is of the highest degree at Kanpur. The Ganga water samples taken at Kanpur show that the water in the river Ganga at Kanpur consisted of 29.200 units (mg/ml) of iron in the month of August, 1986 when the ISI limit for river water is 0.3 and 0.900 (mg/ml) of manganese whereas the WHO limit of manganese for drinking water is H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 2 S.C.R. A 0.05. The Progress Report for the period February 19&7-June. 1987 ~ of Microlevel Intensive Monitoring of Ganga under Ganga Action B c D E F G H Plan describes the samples of the water taken from the river Ganga at F Kanpur thus: "B.O.D. (Bio Oxygen Demand) values are found to be higher than prescribed values of LS.I. C.O.D. (Chemical Oxygen Demand) values are also found to be higher. These values clearly indicate that river water is not fit for drinking, fishing and bathing purposes. Table II further shows that Total Coliform and Fecal Coliform bacteria are always found very high. This is due to disposal of large quantity of untreated municipal waste into river Ganga. These high values of bacteria indicate that water is not fit for drinking, bathing and fishing purpose. To improve quality of water in Ganga', all nullahs should be trapped immediately and raw water should be treated conventionally at water works and disinfected by chlorination." (underlining by us) In the concluding part of the said Progress Report it is stated thus: "The Ganga is grossly polluted at Kanpur. All nu!- ,. labs are discharging the polluted waste water into river )-- , - Ganga. But Jajmau by pass channel, Sismau, Muir Mill, Golf Club and Gupta Ghat nullahs are discharging huge quantities of polluted waste water, To improve the water quality of Ganga all major nullahs should be diverted and treated. Combined treatment should be provided for Jajmau tanneries. Effluent treatment plants should be installed by all major polluting industries." It is needless to say that in the tropical developing countries a large amount of misery, sickness and death due to infectious diseases ~ arises out of water supplies. In I.all's Commentaries. on Water and Air Pollution Laws (2nd Edition) at pages 331 and 333 it is observed thus: "In the tropics, we cannot safely take such a limited M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.l. (VENKATARAMIAH. J.l 547 view. Such Water·borne