http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 19  

PETITIONER: M.C. MEHTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/01/1988

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1115            1988 SCR  (2) 530  1988 SCC  (1) 471        JT 1988 (1)    69

ACT:      In re.  control, prevention  and abatement of pollution of  Ganga   water-In  Kanpur,   U.P.-Responsibility  of  the municipal body in respect thereof.

HEADNOTE: %      This Court  in M.C.  Mehta v.  Union of  India &  ors., [1987] 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 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 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 of cleanliness in the areas under their jurisdiction and the protection of their environments. Under the water  (Prevention and  Control of  Pollution) Act, 1974 (the  ’Water   Act’)  provisions   had  been  made  for  the establishment of  Boards for  the prevention  and control of water pollution,  etc.  The  Environment  (Protection)  Act, 1986,  contained   provisions  relating   to  the   control, prevention and abatement of pollution of water.      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 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  sewerage. 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  petition as  a Public Interest Litigation against

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 19  

the public nuisance 531 caused by  the serious  pollution of  the river  Ganga,  for protecting the 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 improve  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 mahapalika  should submit  its proposals  to  the  State Board within  six months  (from the  date of this judgment). [551H; 552A-F]      The Court further directed;      (i) The  Kanpur Nagar  Mahapalika  should  take  action under the  provisions of  the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, or the relevant bye-laws made thereunder to prevent pollution  of the  water in the river Ganga by waste accumulated at  the large number of dairies in Kanpur having 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 532 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  13  that  sewage  might  be  carried  smoothly through the  sewerage system, and wherever sewerage line was not yet constructed, steps should be taken to lay it; [553B]      (iii) Immediate  action should  also be  taken  by  the Kanpur Nagar  Mahapalika to  construct sufficient  number of public latrines  and 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 19  

urinals. The  cost of  maintenance of  cleanliness of  those latrines and  urinals had  to be  borne by  the  Mahapalika. [553C]      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 if such 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 P  482, Cr.P.C.,  staying prosecutions under the Water Act. [553E-G]      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 G- half-burnt bodies were not thrown into the river Ganga. [553H; 554A]      In future  j application  for licences to establish new industries should  be refused  unless adequate provision had been made  for the  treatment of trade effluents flowing out of the  factories, and  immediate  action  should  be  taken against the  existing industries  found responsible  for the pollution of water. [554B] 533      Having  regard   to  the   grave  consequences  of  the Pollution of  water 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  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  short 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.[555C]

JUDGMENT:      OBSERVATION: The  children should  be taught  about the need 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. [554E]      In order  to rouse amongst the people the consciousness of cleanliness  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 19  

city, town  and village  throughout India  at least  once  a year. During  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 but 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   executive, 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 is witnessed today. [554FM; 555A-B] 534      M.C. Mehta  v. Union of India & others, [1987] 4 S.C.C. 463 and 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 Bobde, R.N.  Trivedi, K.N.  Bhat, Tapash Ray, B.R.L. Iyenger R.P. Singh,  R.P. Kapur, Ravinder Narain, S. Sukumaran, C.B. Singh, S.K.  Dhingra,  P.K.  Jain,  D.N.  Goburdhan,  Arvind Kumar, Ms.  Laxmi Arvind,  Vineet Kumar,  Deepak K.  Thakur, T.V. S.  N. Chari,  Ms. Vrinda  Grover, Badri  Nath,  Rakesh Khanna, Mukul  Mudgal, A.K.  Ghose,  M.M.  Gangadeb,  Probir Mirtra, Sushil Kumar Jain, Saryakant, Pappy T. Mathews, Mrs, Mamta Kachhawaha,  Mrs. Shobha  Dikshit,  G.S.  Misra,  S.R. Srivastava, Parijat Sinha, R. Mohan, Ms. .Bina Gupta, Ranjit Kumar, Krishna  Kumar, R.C. Verma, Arun Minocha, Sri Narain, E.C. Agrawala,  S.R. Setia,  H.K. Puri,  T.S.  Rana,  Pramod Swarup, Ashok  Grover, S.  Markandeya,  Swarup.  Ms,  Lalita Kohli, K.C. Dua, Rajbirbal, R.A. Gupta and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VENKATARAMIAH, J.  By our  judgment dated September 22, 1987 in  M.C. Mehta  v. Union  of India  & others,  [1987] 4 S.C.C. 463,  we issued certain directions with regard to the industries in  which  the  business  of  tanning  was  being carried on  at Jajmau  near Kanpur on the banks of the river Ganga. On that occasion we 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  be taken  up for consideration on the next date of hearing.  Accordingly, we took up for consideration first the case  against the  municipal bodies.  Since it was found that Kanpur  was one  of the  biggest cities on the banks of the river  Ganga, we  took up  for consideration the case in respect of the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika.      The Kanpur  Nagar Mahapalika  is established  under the provisions of  the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter  referred to  as  ’the  Adhiniyam’).  Sub- section (3) of section 535 1 of the Adhiniyam, which is to be found in its 1st Chapter, provides that  the 1st  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 19  

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 1st day of February,  1960  as  the  date  on  which  the  remaining provisions  of   the  Adhiniyam  and  the  three  Schedules, appended thereto,  would come  into operation in relation to the cities of Kanpur, 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  removal of sewage,           offensive matter  and rubbish  and  treatment  and           disposal  thereof   including   establishing   and           maintaining farm or factory;      ...................................................                (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;                (viii) guarding from pollution water used for           human consumption  and preventing  polluted  water           from being so used;           ..............................................." 536      Sections 251,  388, 396,  297, 398, 405, and 407 of the Adhiniyam read as follows:                "251. Provision  of  means  for  disposal  of           sewage- The  Mukhya Nagar  Adhikari may,  for  the           purpose   of    receiving,   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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 19  

         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 drain, it shall           not be  lawful, except with the written permission           of the  Mukhya Nagar  Adhikari, for any person who           is 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 for the removal of the carcasses of all           animals dying within the City.                (2) The  occupier of  any premises in or upon           which 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           Adhikari 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,  irrigation  injurious  to  health-If  the           Director of  Medical and  Health Services  or  the           Civil  Surgeon  or  the  Nagar  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 manner-                (a) in a place within the limits of a City is           injurious  or   facilitates  practices  which  are           injurious to the health of 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  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 prohibition.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 19  

538                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  building  to  cleanse,           repair, cover,  fill up  or drain  off  a  private           well,  tank,   reservoir.  pool,   depression   or           excavation therein which may appear to the Mukhiya           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           mea sures 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.  There  are  almost similar provisions  in sections  7,  189,  19  l  and  other provisions of  the Uttar  Pradesh Municipalities  Act,  1916 which applies  to the  smaller municipal  bodies. The  Uttar Pradesh  Water   Supply  and   Sewerage  Act,  1975  imposes statutory  duties   on  the  authorities  mentioned  therein regarding the  provision of  water supply  to the cities and towns and  construction of  sewerage systems  in  them.  The perusal of  these provisions in the laws governing the local bodies shows that the 539 Nagar Mahapalikas  and the  Minicipal Boards  are  primarily responsible for  the maintenance of cleanliness in the areas under  their   jurisdiction  and  the  protection  of  their environment. We  have, in  the judgment  delivered by  us on September  22,   1987,  briefly   referred  to   the   Water (Prevention and  Control of  Pollution) Act, 1974 (Act No. 6 of 1974)  (hereinafter referred  to as  ’the Water  Act’) in which provisions have been made for the establishment of the Boards for  the prevention  and control  of water pollution, for conferring  on and  assigning to  such Boards powers and functions  relating   thereto  and   for  matters  connected therewith. In  the Water  Act the  expressions  ’pollution’, ’sewage effluent’,  ’sewer’, ’stream’,  and ’trade effluent’ are defined as follows:                "2 Definitions-In this Act, unless the           context otherwise requires-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 19  

         . . . . . ..... .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .                (e) ’pollution’  means such  contamination of           water or such alteration of the physical, chemical           or  biological   properties  of   water  or   such           discharge of  any sewage  or treade effluent or of           any other  liquid, gaseous or solid substance into           water (whether  directly or  indirectly) as may or           is likely  to, create  a nuisance  or render  such           water harmful  or injurious  to public  health  or           safety, or  to domestic,  commercial,  industrial,           agricultural or  other legitimate  uses, or to the           life  and  health  of  animals  or  plants  or  of           acquatic organisms;           . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .                (g) ’sewage effluent’ means effluent from any           sewerage  system  or  sewage  disposal  works  and           includes sullage from open drains;                (gg)  ’sewer’   means  any  conduit  pipe  or           channel, open  or closed, carrying sewage or trade           effluent;           . . . . . . .. ... . .. .. . .. ....... .. . .                (j) ’stream’ includes-                     (i) river; 540                     (ii) water  course (whether  flowing  or                          for the time being dry);                     (iii) inland  water (whether  natural or                          artificial);                     (iv) sub-terranean waters;                     (v)   sea or tidal waters to such extent                          or, as  the case  may be,  to  such                          point  as   the   State   may,   by                          notification   in    the   official                          Gazette, specify in this behalf;                (k) ’trade  effluent’  includes  any  liquid,           gaseous or  solid substance  which  is  discharged           from any  premises used  for carrying on any trade           or industry, other than domestic sewage . "      Section 3  and 4  of the  Water  Act  provide  for  the constitution  of   the  Central   Board  and   State  Boards respectively. A  State  Board  has  been  constituted  under section 4  of the  Water Act  in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Section 16  of the  Water Act  sets out the functions of the Central Board  and section 17 of the Water Act lays down the functions of  the State  Board. The functions of the Central Board are  primarily advisory  and supervisory in character. The Central  Board is  also required  to advise  the Central Government on  any  matter  concerning  the  prevention  and control of water pollution and to co-ordinate the activities of the  State Boards.  The Central Board is also required to provide technical  assistance  and  guidance  to  the  State Boards, carry  out and  sponsor investigations  and research relating to  problems of  water  pollution  and  prevention, control or  abatement of  water pollution.  The functions of the State  Board are  more  comprehensive.  In  addition  to advising the  State Government  on any matter concerning the prevention, control  or abatement  of water  pollution,  the State Board  is required  among other  things (i)  to plan a comprehensive  programme  for  the  prevention,  control  or abatement of pollution of streams and wells in the State and to  secure  the  execution  thereof,  (ii)  to  collect  and disseminate information  relating to water pollution and the prevention,  control   or  abatement   thereof;   (iii)   to encourage, conduct  and participate  in  investigations  and research  relating   to  problems  of  water  pollution  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 19  

prevention, control or abatement of water pollution; (iv) to inspect sewage  or trade effluents, works and plants for the treatment of  sewage and  trade  effluents;  (v)  to  review plans, specifications  or other  data relating to plants set up for the treatment of 541 water, works for the purification thereof and the system for the disposal  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 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  powers 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 provisions 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 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.      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 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 542 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 Pradesh State Board constituted under the Water Act, an affidavit has been filed before this Court by  Dr.- G.N.  Misra, Scientific  officer of  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 19  

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 Environmental Engineer and Shri A.K. Tiwari,  Junior  Engineer  enclosed  to-  the  counter- affidavit as Exhibit K-5 reads thus:                "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 Jajmau.                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. 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. Jal Nigam                (1) Re-modelling of sewage pumping station at           Jajmau and improvement to sewage farm.                (2) Nala Tapping.                (3) Sewage Treatment Plant.                (B) Kanpur Jal Sansthan                (1) Cleaning of Trunk and main sewers.                (C)  Integrated  Environmental  and  sanitary           Engineer project is being executed under the Dutch           Assistance in Jajmau Area.                (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.           Sd/                                            Sd/           A.K.TIWARI                     (TANZAR ULLAH KHAN)           J.E.                          ASSTT. ENVIRONMENTAL                                                   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:                              KANPUR Population  Estimated water  Estimated sewage  Treatment in 1981     supply in 1981   generated (70% of                              the water                              supply to the city

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 19  

544 .......................................................... 16.39 lacks  392.14 million  274.50 million  Nil              litres a day    litres a day ..........................................................      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 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 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:                (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 Nalas           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 mil  lion gallons per 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  economically   weaker           sections." 545 The affidavit  further states  that the  U.P. Jal Nigam, the U.P.   Water   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  Jal  Sansthan have started  taking action to minimise the pollution of the river Ganga.  It is  also stated  therein that the financial assistance is  being provided by the Central Ganga Authority through Ganga  Project Directorate,  State  Government,  the World Bank,  the Dutch  Government etc. for implementing the said measures.  The said  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 Ganga  Authority for  Kanpur is  Rs.3694.94 lacs and that upto  the end  of the  current  financial  year  it  is proposed to  spend Rs.785.58  lacs (1985 to 1987-88) towards

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 19  

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 1970. 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 malba  from  construction  of buildings into sewers through manholes; (v) non-availability of mechanical  equipment for  sewer cleaning 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.      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 August,  1986 to  January, 1987  from  Uttar  Pradesh region are  furnished. 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 546 0.05. The Progress Report for the period February 1987-June. 1987 of Microlevel Intensive Monitoring of Ganga under Ganga Action Plan  describes the  samples of  the water taken from the river Ganga at Kanpur thus:                "B.O.D. (Bio  oxygen Demand) values are found           to be  higher than  prescribed  values  of  l.S.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           nullahs are  discharging the  polluted waste water           into river  Ganga. But  Jajmau  by  pass  channel,           Sismau, Muir Mill, Golf Club and Gupta Ghat nullah           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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 19  

         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 Lall’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 547           view.  Such   Water-borne  diseases   as  malaria,           schistosomiasis, guinea  worm and yellow fever are           either terrible  scourges of,  or threats to, many           tropical populations.  The hazards  from bad water           are  thus  much  greater.  Poverty  is  much  more           serious for  many tropical  areas;  in  the  rural           areas-where most  people live-and around the edges           of  the  cities,  which  are  the  fastest-growing           communities.   most   people   cannot   afford   a           conventionally good  water supply  at present, and           the choice  in the  short run may be between doing           nothing and providing somewhat improved supply. If           an ideal  water system  is not possible, there are           options as  to what  needs should  be met  by  the           partial improvements.  To make the right decisions           we need  again the  broad picture of water-related           diseases.  So,   because  of  these  two  tropical           characteristics-warmth and  poverty-a  wider  view           than in temperate lands is necessary.(p.331)            . .. . .. . .. ... ..... .. .... . . .. .. .. . .                Water-borne  diseases-The   classical  water-           borne  diseases   are  due   to  highly  infective           organisms where  only rather  few  are  needed  to           infect  someone,   relative  to   the  levels   of           pollution that  readily occur.  The two chief ones           have  a   high  mortality  if  untreated  and  are           diseases which  a community  is  very  anxious  to           escape: Typhoid  and cholera.  Both are relatively           fragile organisms whose sole reservoir is man.                These two diseases occur most dramatically as           the ’common  source out-break  where  a  community           water supply  gets contaminated  by faeces  from d           person suffering  from, or  carrying, one  of  the           infections. Many  people drink  the  water  and  a           number of  these fall  ill from  the infection  at           about the same time.                Typhoid  is  the  most  cosmopolitan  of  the           classical  water-borne   infections.  In   man  it           produces  a   severe  high  fever  with  generated           systemic,  more  than  intestinal,  symptoms.  The           bacteria are  ingested and very few are sufficient           to infect.  The typhoid patient is usually too ill           to go out polluting the water and is not infective           prior o falling sick. However, a small proportion           of those  who recover  clinically continue to pass           typhoid bacteria in their faeces for 548           months or  years; these carriers are the source of           water borne  infections. Gallstones  predispose to           the carrier  state as  the bacteria persist in the           inflamed gall  bladder. In the tropics, lesions of           Schistosoma haematobium in the bladder also act as           nide  of   infection,  producing  urinary  typhoid           carriers, whilst  rectal schistosomiasis  combined           with   typhoid leads  to a  persistent sever fever           lasting many months. Typhoid bacteria survive well

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 19  

         in water but do not multiply there.                Cholera is  in some  ways similar to typhoid,           but its  causative bacteria  are more  fragile and           the clinical  course  is  extremely  dramatic.  In           classical cholera the onset of diarrhoea is sudden           and its  volume  immense  so  that  the  untreated           victim  has  a  high  probability  of  dying  from           dehydration within 24 hours or little more.                Several other  infections are water borne but           are  less  important  than  typhoid  and  cholera.           Leptospirosis,  due  to  a  spirochaete,  has  its           reservoir in wild rodents which pollute the water.           Leptospis can  penetrate the skin as well as being           ingested. They  produce jaundice and fever, called           .Weil’s disease, which is severe but not common. ’      The amount of suffering which the members of the public are likely  to undergo by using highly polluted water can be easily gathered from the above extract.      In the  book entitled  ’Water Pollution and disposal of Waste Water  on Land’  (1983) by  U.N. Mahida. I.S.E. (Retd) the problem  of water  pollution, the benefits of control of pollution and  the urgency  of the  problem have  been dealt with. At pages l, 2, 4 and S of the said book it is observed thus:                "As long  as the  human population  was small           and communities were scattered over large areas of           land, the  disposal of  human  wastes  created  no           problems.   People   could   defecate   in   areas           surrounding villages  and  other  habitations  and           leave it  to nature  to dispose  of the  waste  by           assimilation in  the surrounding land and air. But           as  communities   became  more   concentrated  and           villages and  towns grew,  such a mode of disposal           by  natural   agencies  came  to  be  replaced  by           organised disposal, though again through 549           the agency  of natural  land and soil columns. The           collection of  human excreta  and its  disposal in           earthen trenches was resorted to by many towns and           adopted the basket privy system.                The introduction  of a  system of water-borne           sewage created  new problems  in the  disposal  of           human  wastes,  as  now  along  with  the  earlier           problem of  getting rid  of  solid  wastes,  i.e.,           human excreta,  the problem of the disposal of the           water employed for the removal of human wastes had           also to  be faced.  This was  the  origin  of  the           problem of  sewage disposal. At first, the natural           instinct was  to channelize  the sewage-the soiled           water-to natural  streams and  rivers. For  a time           this mode  of disposal  was even  considered quite           efficacious.   Such   methods   did   not   create           difficulties as  sewage discharges  were small  as           compared  to   the  stream   flow.  But  with  the           increased   discharge   of   progressively   large           quantities of  sewage, polluted  streams became  a           serious menace to public health.           NATURE OF THE PROBLEM                The introduction  of  modern  water  carriage           systems transferred  the sewage  disposal from the           streets  and  the  surroundings  of  townships  to           neighbouring streams  and  rivers.  This  was  the           beginning of the problem of water pollution. It is           ironic that  man, from  the  earliest  times,  has           tended to  dispose  of  his  wastes  in  the  very

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 19  

         streams and rivers from which most of his drinking           water is  drawn. Until quite recently this was not           much of a problem, but with rapid urbanisation and           industrialisation, the problem of the pollution of           natural waters is reaching alarming proportions.                The most  disturbing feature  of this mode of           disposal is  that those  who cause water pollution           are seldom  the people  who suffer from it. Cities           and industries  discharge their  untreated or only           partially  treated  sewage  and  industrial  waste           waters  into   neighbouring  streams  and  thereby           remove waste  matter from their own neighbourhood.           But in  doing so, they create intense pollution in           streams  and  rivers  and  expose  the  downstream           riparian  population   to  dangerously  unhygienic           conditions. In addition to the with- 550           drawal of  water for  downstream towns and cities,           in many  developing countries,  numerous  villages           and  riparian  agricultural  population  generally           rely on  streams and rivers for drinking water for           themselves and their cattle, for cooking, bathing,           washing  and  numerous  other  uses.  It  is  thus           riparian   population    that   specially    needs           protection  from   the  growing  menace  of  water           pollution. (pages 1 and 2)           .................................................           BENEFITS OF CONTROL                The benefits which result from the prevention           of water  pollution include  a general improvement           in the  standard of  health of the population, the           possibility of  restoring stream  waters to  their           original beneficial  state and  rendering them fit           as sources of water supply, and the maintenance of           clean and  healthy surroundings  which would  then           offer  attractive  recreational  facilities.  Such           measures would also restore fish and other aquatic           life.                Apart from  its menace  to  health,  polluted           water considerably  reduces the water resources of           a nation.  Since the  total amount  of a country’s           utilisable water  remains essentially the same and           the demand for water is always increasing, schemes           for the  prevention  of  water  pollution  should,           wherever possible,  make the  best use  of treated           waste waters  either in  industry or  agriculture.           Very often such processes may also result in other           benefits  in   addition   to   mere   reuse.   The           application  of  effluents  on  agricultural  land           supplies not  only much  needed water  to  growing           crops but  also manurial ingredients; the recovery           of commercially  valuable ingredients  during  the           treatment of  industrial waste waters often yields           by-products which  may to  some extent  offset the           cost of treatment                If appropriate  financial  credits  could  be           calculated  in   respect  of   these   and   other           incidental benefits,  it would  be  apparent  that           measures for  the prevention  of pollution are not           unduly costly  and are  within the  reach  of  all           nations, advanced  or developing.  It is fortunate           that people  are be  coming more  receptive to the           idea of sharing the financial burden for lessening           pollution. It is now recognised in most 551

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 19  

         countries  that   it  is   the  responsibility  of           industries to  treat their  trade wastes in such a           way that  they do  not deteriorate  the quality of           the receiving  waters, which  otherwise would make           the  utilisation  of  such  polluted  waters  very           difficult or costly for downstream settlers.           URGENCY OF THE PROBLEM                The   crucial   question   is   not   whether           developing countries  can afford such measures for           the control  of water  pollution but it is whether           they can afford to neglect them. The importance of           the latter  is emphasised  by the fact that in the           absence of adequate measures for the prevention or           control  of   water  pollution,   a  nation  would           eventually be  confronted with  far  more  onerous           burdens to  secure wholesome and adequate supplies           of water  for different  purposes.  If  developing           countries embark  on suitable pollution prevention           policies  during   the  initial  stages  of  their           industrialisation,  they   can  avoid  the  costly           mistakes committed  in the  past by many developed           countries. It  is, however,  unfortunate that  the           importance of  controlling pollution  is generally           not realised until considerable damage has already           been done; (Pages 3 and 4)"      In  common   law  the   Municipal  Corporation  can  be restrained by  an injunction  in  an  action  brought  by  a reparian owner  who has suffered on account of the pollution of the  water in  a  river  caused  by  the  Corporation  by discharging into  the river  insufficiently  treated  sewage from discharging  such sewage  into the  river. In  Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association v. British Celanese Ltd., [19531  Chancery 149  the second  defendant, the Derby Corporation admitted  that it  had polluted  the plaintiff’s fishery  in   the  River  Derwent  by  discharging  into  it insufficiently treated sewage, but claimed that by the Derby Corporation Act,  1901 it  was under  a duty  to  provide  a sewerage system,  and that  the system which had accordingly been provided had become inadequate solely from the increase in the population of Derby. The Court of Appeal held that it was not  inevitable that  the work constructed under the Act of 1901  should cause  a nuisance,  and that in any case the Act  on   its  true   construction  did  not  authorise  the commission of  a nuisance. The petitioner in the case before us is  no doubt  not  a  riparian  owner.  He  is  a  person interested in  protecting the  lives of  the people who make use of the water flowing in the river Ganga and his right to maintain the petition cannot be dis- 552 puted. The  nuisance caused  by the  pollution of  the river Ganga is  a public  nuisance, which  is wide spread in range and indiscriminate  in  its  effect  and  it  would  not  be reasonable  to   expect  any   particular  person   lo  take proceedings to  stop it  as distinct  from the  community at large.  The  petition  has  been  entertained  as  a  Public Interest Litigation.  On the  facts and in the circumstances of the  case we  are of  the view  that  the  Petitioner  is entitled  to  move  this  Court  in  order  to  enforce  the statutory provisions  which impose  duties on  the municipal authorities and  the Boards constituted under the Water Act. We have  already set  out the  relevant  provisions  of  the statute  which   impose  those  duties  on  the  authorities concerned. On account of their failure to obey the statutory duties for  several years  the water  in the  river Ganga at Kanpur has  become so much polluted that it can no longer be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 19  

used by  the people  either for drinking or for bathing. The Nagar  Mahapalika   of  Kanpur   has  to   bear  the   major responsibility for  the pollution  of the  river near Kanpur city.      It is  no doubt  true that  the construction of certain works has  been undertaken  under the  Ganga Action  Plan at Kanpur in  order to  improve  the  sewerage  system  and  to prevent pollution of the water in the river Ganga. But as we see from  the affidavit  filed on  behalf of the authorities concerned in  this case  the works are going on at a snail’s pace. We  find from  the affidavits  filed on  behalf of the Kanpur Nagar  Mahapalika that certain target dates have been fixed for the completion of the works already undertaken. We expect the  authorities concerned  to complete  those  works within the  target dates  mentioned in the counter-affidavit and not  to delay  the completion  of the works beyond those dates.  It  is,  however,  noticed  that  the  Kanpur  Nagar Mahapalika has  not yet  submitted its  proposals for sewage treatment works  to the  State Board  constituted under  the Water Act.  The Kanpur  Nagar Mahapalika  should submit  its proposals to the State Board within six months from today.      It is  seen that  there is a large number of dairies in Kanpur in  which there  are about  80,000 cattle. The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika  should take action under the provisions of the Adhiniyam  or the  relevant bye-laws  made thereunder to prevent the  pollution of  the water  in the  river Ganga on account of  the waste accumulated at the dairies. The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika may either direct the dairies to be shifted to a place outside the city so that the waste accumulated at the dairies  does not ultimately reach the river Ganga or in the alternative it may arrange for the removal of such waste by employing motor vehicles to transport such waste from the existing dairies in which even 553 the owners of the dairies cannot claim any compensation. The Kanpur Nagar  Mahapalika should  immediately take  action to prevent the  collection of  manure at  private  manure  pits inside the city.      The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should take immediate steps to increase the size of the sewers in the labour colonies so that the sewage may be carried smoothly through the sewerage system. Wherever  sewerage line is not yet constructed steps should be taken to lay it.      Immediate action  should also  be taken  by the  Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika  to construct  sufficient number  of public latrines and urinals for the use of the poor people in order to prevent  defecation by them on open land. The proposal to levy any  charge for making use of such latrines and urinals shall be  dropped as  that would  be a  reason for  the poor people not  using the  public latrines and urinals. The cost of maintenance  of cleanliness of those latrines and urinals has to be borne by the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika.      It is  submitted before  us  that  whenever  the  Board constituted under the Water Act initiates any proceedings to prosecute industrialists  or other  persons who  pollute the water in  the  river  Ganga,  the  persons  accused  of  the offences immediately  institute petitions  under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in the High Court and obtain stay orders thus frustrating the attempt of the Board to enforce  the provisions  of the  Water Act. They have not placed before  us the  facts of any particular case. We are, however, of  the view that since the problem of pollution of the water  in the river Ganga has become very acute the High Courts  should  not  ordinarily  grant  orders  of  stay  of criminal proceedings in such cases and even if such an order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 19  

of stay  is made  in any extra-ordinary case the High Courts should dispose  of the case within a short period, say about two months,  from the  date of the institution of such case. We request  the High  Courts to  take up for hearing all the cases where  such orders have been issued under sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 staying prosecutions under the  Water Act  within two months. The counsel for the Board constituted  under the  Water Act shall furnish a list of such  cases to  the Registrar of the concerned High Court for appropriate action being taken thereon.      One other  aspect to which our attention has been drawn is the  practice of  throwing corpses and semi-burnt corpses into the  river Ganga.  This practice  should be immediately brought to an end. The co-operation of the people and police should be sought in enforcing 554 this restriction.  Steps shall  be taken by the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika and  the Police  authorities to  ensure that dead bodies or  half burnt  bodies are  not thrown into the river Ganga.      Whenever applications  for licences  to  establish  new industries are  made in  future, such  applications shall be refused unless  adequate provision  has been  made  for  the treatment of  trade effuents  flowing out  of the factories. immediate  action  should  be  taken  against  the  existing industries if  they are  found responsible  tor pollution of water.      Having  regard   to  the   grave  consequences  of  the pollution of  water and  air and the need for protecting and improving the  natural environment which is considered to be one of  the fundamental  duties under the Constitution [vide Clause (g) of Article 51A of the Constitution] we are of the view that it is the duty of the Central Government to direct all the  educational institutions  throughout India to teach atleast for  one hour  in a  week lessons  relating  to  the protection and  the improvement  of the  natural environment including forests,  lakes, L)  livers and  wild life  in the first ten  classes. The  Central Government  shall get  text books written  for the  said purpose  and distribute them to the educational  institutions free  of cost. Children should be  taught   about  the  need  for  maintaining  cleanliness commencing with the cleanliness of the house both inside and outside, and  of the  streets  in  which  they  live.  Clean surroundings lead to healthy body and healthy mind. Training of teachers  who teach  this subject  by the introduction of short  term   courses  for   such  training  shall  also  be considered. This should be done throughout India.      In order  to rouse amongst the people the consciousness of cleanliness  of environment  the Government  of India and the  Governments   1.  Of   the  States  and  of  the  Union Territories may  consider  the  desirability  of  organising ’Keep the  city clean’  week (Nagar Nirrnalikarana Saptaha), ’Keep the  town clean  week (Pura Nirmalikarana saptaha) and ’Keep the village clean week (Grama Nirmalikarna Saptaha) in every city,  town and village throughout India at least once a year.  During 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, Municipal Corporations, Town  Municipalities,  Village  Panchayats  or such other  local 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 but may he staggered depending upon the convenience of the particular city, town

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 19  

555 or village.  During that week all the citizens including the members of  the executive,  members of  Parliament  and  the State  Legislatures,   members  of   the  judiciary  may  be requested to  co-operate with  the local  authorities and to 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 all-round deterioration of  the environment  which we  are  witnessing today.  We  request  the  Ministry  of  Environment  of  the Government of  India to  give a serious consideration to the above suggestion.      What we  have stated  above applies mutatis mutandis to all  other   Mahapalikas  and   Municipalities  which   have jurisdiction over  the areas  through which  the river Ganga flows. Copies  of this  judgment shall  be sent  to all such Nagar Mahapalikas  and Municipalities.  The case against the Nagar Mahapalikas  and Municipalities  in the state of Uttar Pradesh shall  stand adjourned  by six  months. Within  that time all  the Nagar  Mahapalikas and  Municipalities in  the State of  Uttar Pradesh  through whose areas the river Ganga flows shall  file affidavits  in this  Court explaining  the various  steps   they  have  taken  for  the  prevention  of pollution of  the water  in the  river Ganga in the light of the  above   judgment.  The  case  as  against  the  several industries in  the State  of Uttar Pradesh which are located on the banks of the river Ganga will he taken up for hearing on the 9th of February, 1988. S . L.                                 Petition disposed of. 556