S c judgements

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 08 September 2011 This query is : Resolved
Recently the Supreme Court of India dismissed SLP, i am searching on its website, it was not found. how can i find? kindly help me. can i ask under rti for judgement of dismissal.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 08 September 2011
You mention here the detail of citation, we shall bring here for you. you may vist www.supremecourtofindia.org if have particulars of citation.

M/s. Y-not legal services (Expert) 09 September 2011
If you know the exact date mean just search it through date wise, or check it through the parties name wise sir..

prabhakar singh (Expert) 09 September 2011
Expert : tom.advocate has rightly guided as to how to make search on site provided by Mr.Makkad.

R.Ramachandran (Expert) 09 September 2011
Do you know the SLP Number?
Do you know who was your lawyer?
Do you know the parties (appellant / respondent) complete names as given in the SLP?
Do you know on which date it was dismissed by the Supreme Court?
You have to give some particulars. Without these particulars it will not be possible to locate the case.
Even if you make an application under RTI, you have to give some such particulars. Without that even the Supreme Court also will not be able to make available the information to you.

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 09 September 2011
None of information is availed except:
The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on Dt.19.08.2011 says in its order that "We had directed on 22nd April, 2011 that no constructions shall be made
within 500 meter of the highest flood level. The order was challenged before
the Supreme Court by Allahabad Development Authority vide Special Leave
to Appeal. The special leave to appeal has been got dismissed as withdrawn."
I attached order copy herewith.
Now, I asked two question:
1. Order copy of the Supreme Court of as said above.
2. Can i get order copy of High Court/Supreme Court Under the RTI Act?

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 09 September 2011
Mr. Ramachandra
Sir,
As asked, i put it. please do needful.

R.Ramachandran (Expert) 09 September 2011
You already have a copy of the High Court order. Therefore why do you need it through RTI?

Further, even according to you, the special leave petition has been got dismissed as withdrawn. If it was dismissed as withdrawn, it only means that the party has not preferred any Special Leave Petition. Therefore once you know this, why is it that you require a copy of the SC Order.

As rightly mentioned by you, no such order is available on SC Website.

Therefore, it would be advisable for you to get in touch with any of the Advocates of the contesting parties, if you also happen to be in Allahabad, to get a copy of the SC order.

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 09 September 2011
Thanks for reply.

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 09 September 2011
Can i get dismissal order copy of Supreme Court Under the RTI Act?

R.Ramachandran (Expert) 09 September 2011
You don't seem to understand what we are saying.
In any case, you try your luck through RTI with the Supreme Court.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 09 September 2011
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 2
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 4003 of 2006
Petitioner :- Re: Ganga Pollution
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Vijay Chandra Srivastava,A.K. Gupta,A.K. Srivastava,Anil Tiwari,Arun Kumar,Arvind Agarwal,Baij Nath Yadav,Baleshwar Chaturvedi,D.B. Mishra,D.S. Mishra,Jagdish Tewari,K.C. Pandey,P.N. Mishra,S.K. Srivastava,Shailesh Singh,Sharad Kr. Srivastava,Sunita Sharma,V.B. Singh,V.C. Mishra,Vivek Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K. Mishra,Ajay Bhanot,Anjani Kumar Mishra,C.L.Pandey,Chandan Sharma,Dr. H.N.Tripathi,H.N. Singh,Hem Pratap Singh,Iqbal Ahmad,M.C. Chaturvedi,N. Misra,P.S. Baghel,R.B. Shukla,Rajiv Lochan Shukla,S.A. Lari,S.M.A. Kazmi,S.P. Kesharwani,S.P. Singh,T.M.Khan,Vivek Birla,Vivek Verma,W.A. Hashmi
______

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Heard Dr. Ashok Nigam, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Ajay Bhanot for Union of India, Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, special counsel for the State of U.P., Sri S.G. Husnain, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for U.P. Pollution Control Board, Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel for Municipal Corporation, Allahabad, Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the Tanneries and Sri A.K. Gupta, learned amicus curiae as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra, learned counsel appearing for newly impleaded respondent, Allahabad Development Authority.
Learned amicus curiae has filed an application for impleadment of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment authority, Uttar Pradesh, through its Member Secretary, Pickup Bhawan, Gomti, Nagar, Lucknow and Allahabad Development Authority though its Vice Chairman, Indira Bhawan, Civil Lines, Allahabad as respondents No. 18 and 19. The impleadment application is allowed.

An application for impleadment has also been filed on behalf of Allahabad Development Authority through Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra Advocate along with application for vacating the order dated 28.3.2011 supported by a detailed affidavit. The application and affidavit are taken on record. The impleadment of Allahabad Development Authority has already been allowed.

Learned Additional Solicitor General with regard to transfer of a Defence land area 1123.80 square meters at Mori Gate Fort, Cantt. Allahabad for the purpose of establishing the sewage pumping station, has submitted that the letter dated 28.1.2011 has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence informing the Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. that in principle approval for permitting State Government of Uttar Pradesh/Ganga Pollution Control Unit for construction of a sewage pumping station on the aforesaid land has been granted. The consent of the State Government as per current Standard Table of Rents (STR) and not as per the circle rate of the State Government has been sought. No appropriate reply has been given by the learned counsel appearing for the State as to why the aforesaid concurrence has not been yet been communicated to the Ministry of Defence, whereas establishing a sewage pumping station at Mori Gate is urgently required. However, in the affidavit dated 28.3.2011 sworn by Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow, a copy of the Government order dated 19.2.2011 has been filed as Annexure-6 by which order, the State Government has communicated the Commissioner, Allahabad Division and District Magistrate, Allahabad and Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad to take appropriate action as per the letter of the Central Government dated 28.1.2011. The said letter clearly thus conveys the State Government's concurrence to the letter dated 28.1.2011 and the authorities aforesaid were directed to take appropriate action. Another letter dated 25.2.2011 written by Lt. Col. A.S. Dabholkar has been annexed by which the General Manager Ganga Pollution Control Unit was requested to work out the cost of the Defence Land as per current (effective) Standard Table of Rent (STR) and forward the same to DG, DE New Delhi. From the aforesaid correspondences, which have been brought on record along with the aforesaid affidavit, it is clear that although the Central Government has communicated its concurrence for transfer of the Defence land as per current (effective) Standard Table of Rent but due to not taking effective compliance by the authority concerned, the working permission for construction of sewage pumping station could not be issued by Ministry of Defence.

Sri S.G. Hasnain, learned Additional Advocate General sought to contend that the State Government has given its permission to transfer the land on circle rate which arguments has no leg to stand when the Ministry of Defence has already communicated their concurrence for transfer of the land on current Standard Table of Rent (STR) and the land belong to the Ministry of Defence, it is not open for the Additional Advocate General to contend that the cost of the land is to be made by circle rate. The above argument itself suggests that the State Government is not effectively taking consequential steps, which is failing the transfer of Defence land. We direct the State authorities including the District Magistrate, Allahabad to immediately communicate their approval for the transfer of land on the valuation as per Standard Table of Rents. All effective steps in this context be taken within two weeks and the Ministry of Defence shall accordingly issue working permission for construction of sewage pumping station within four weeks thereafter so that the construction of sewage pumping station be started.

Sri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has also submitted that the issue of minimum flow of water in river is being considered by a sub committee constituted on October 4, 2010 the report of which is awaited. He has referred to affidavit of Sri Sudhir Garg, filed on behalf of Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, New Delhi dated 27.3.2011. From the aforesaid counter affidavit, it is clear that Water Quality Assessment Authority, New Delhi was constituted by the Government of India in the year 2001. A decision was taken on 14.5.2003 by the said Authority to constitute a working group with the terms of reference which also included studies towards deciding minimum flows in the river and other related issues. The report is said to be submitted in July, 2007, recommending that legal and institutional implications of the report may be examined by a committee under the Chairmanship of Chief Engineer, CWC. A report in this regard has been submitted on October 27, 2009 which was discussed on 11.10.2010 by Water Quality Assessment Authority when it was agreed that a sub committee be constituted. As noticed in earlier orders of this Court two of the issues which need to be considered are as as follows:

(a) Can the State draw unlimited quantity of water from a river even to the extent of rendering its main stream a dry zone?

(b) Can the State because of drawl of water from upper portion of the river Ganges render its quantity or quality of water completely unfit for human use even for abthing purposes?

The aforesaid facts indicate that the issue of minimum flow of water in a river is engaging attention of various authorities and Committees of Ministry of Government of India for long about a decade but no final recommendation in this regard could be made. Sri Ajay Bhanot appearing for the Union has submitted that a report in this regard shall be shortly submitted and brought before the Court. We notice that large number of issues are being considered by Water Quality Assessment Authority but for the purpose of this case, recommendation/ report is required on following two issues:

(i) Standards regarding quality of water in river Ganges which is fit for drinking and bathing purposes.

(ii) issues '(a)' and '(b)' as quoted above with regard to minimum flow of water in river Ganges.

In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Ministry of Water Resources as well as Ministry of Environment and Forest to take immediate steps in this regard so as the appropriate recommendation/report in that regard be submitted and brought before the Court within a period of three weeks from today.

Along with counter affidavit of Sri S.K. Sarcar filed on behalf of Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, New Delhi dated 25.1.2011, the Government of India has brought on record the inspection report of the expert committee which was constituted in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 6.12.2010 passed in this petition. The Committee was directed to inspect the laying down of the sewer line and if necessary by digging the sewer line to find out whether the sewer line work done, was in accordance with the approved DPR. U.P. Jal Nigam was also directed to take necessary steps in that regard. The expert committee constituted by the Ministry of Urban Development Government of India visited the city of Allahabad on 29th and 30th December, 2010 and inspected the works and submitted its report which has been filed as Annexure-C.A- 1. The report brought on record indicates that there has been variation in actual work undertaken regarding laying down of the sewer line in accordance with the approved DPR. Several shortcomings and violations of D.P.R. have been pointed out in the inspection report.

An affidavit on behalf of U.P. Jal Nigam has been filed in this regard. The affidavit filed by U.P. Jal Nigam is sketchy and does not refer to any action taken by the U.P. Jal Nigam, which is the implementing agency for laying down sewer line in reference to the inspection report of the expert committee. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate appearing for U.P,. Jal Nigam has prayed for time to take effective steps and file a proper affidavit in this regard. As prayed three weeks' time is allowed. The appropriate direction in this context shall be issued after filing of the affidavit by U.P. Jal Nigam.

This Court vide order dated 19.1.2011 had issued following directions:

"It was pointed out by learned Amicus Curiae that the colour and quality of the water at Sangam and several other places has deteriorated and the colour has become red and brown which clearly suggests that the quality of the water has deteriorated due to unabated pollution of river water including the pollution at Kanpur Nagar and other cities.

Dr. H.N. Tripathi, who is present for the U.P. Pollution Control Board, has filed affidavit bringing the report regarding analysis of the water which confirms that water quality has deteriorated. We fail to understand that the river water is continuously being polluted and the quality is going bad to worse but no appropriate action by the State Government and the Authorities of the U.P. Pollution Control Board is being taken in this regard who are statutorily obliged to check the pollution. We provide that by the next date all appropriate action shall be taken in this regard. Action taken be brought on record before the Court by means of an affidavit."

It has also been noticed in the earlier order that Chief Secretary of the State, who was present before the Court in earlier proceedings, have assured the Court that appropriate action in this regard be taken and brought on the record. As noticed above due to unabated pollution and discharge of untreated water in river Ganges, the colour and quality of the water is deteriorating which become visible at Sangam. No satisfactory compliance in this regard has been brought on record by the State of U.P. The State of U.P. who is to oversee that bodies and persons polluting the water to such great extent which has changed the colour of water be identified and action be taken, has failed to do any substantial work in this regard. An affidavit has been filed by Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the U.P. Pollution Control Board dated 22.4.2011 sworn by Dr. Rajeev Upadhyay, Chief Environmental Officer, annexing therewith the letters written by Dr. C.S. Bhatt, Member Secretary dated 13.4.2011 to the Director Indian Institute of Toxicological Research, M.G. Marg, Lucknow to carry on indepth study of the causes of occurrence of colour and water quality. Another letter dated 18.4.2011 of Indian Institute of Toxicology Research has been brought on record indicating concurrence of the institute to carry on desired study. The letter written by the Member Secretary Dr. C.S. Bhatt according to us, is nothing but an act of the U.P. Pollution Control Board abdicating its main function to find out the polluters and take action against them. The U.P. Pollution Control Board, whose main function is to prevent water pollution and take appropriate action against the polluters, instead of taking appropriate action itself, which is a body of experts, is asking the other institution to know the causes of occurrence of colour and water quality. The U.P. Pollution Control Board which has been constituted to check the pollution is not taking any action itself rather it is asking from another institute to know the cause of pollution, whereas the water of river Ganges is decolouring due to unabated pollution, which is continuing from year after year. We are constrained to observe that U.P. Pollution Control Board is not performing its duties as entrusted by statutory provisions. We direct the Chairman of the U.P. Pollution Control Board to file his personal affidavit on the next date and be present in the Court to explain as to what action he has taken in this regard and in compliance of various directions issued by this Court in this petition.

In our order dated 28.3.2011, we have noticed that the State had acquired land for sewage farm in the year 1915 to the extent of 277 acres out of which 45 hectares land had been transferred to Allahabad Development Authority for the purpose of construction of housing colony on the river bank. The proceedings of public Interest Litigation (being PIL No. 54654 of 2009 Re: Sewage Farm) as well as Public Interest Litigation No. 1408 of 2011 were also noticed. This Court has noticed the acute problem of discharge of untreated sewage of Allahabad district directly in river Ganges, which is still continuing. It was noticed that total capacity of sewage treatment plant functioning at Allahabad is only 93 MLD, whereas sewage generated is 232 MLD hence, 119 MLD untreated sewage is directly thrown in the river Ganges. It was also noticed that the land acquired for the sewage farm had been diverted for the other purpose, which stands admitted in the affidavit of Nagar Nigam, Allahabad. The Chief Secretary, State of U.P. who was present during the earlier proceedings before the Court, had assured the Court that the State shall review the entire issue at its level, with regard to the use of the land which was earlier acquired for the purpose of sewage farm. Today an affidavit of Surya Prakash Misra, Special Secretary, Urban Development sworn on 21.4.2011, has been brought on record annexing the report of the proceedings of the meeting dated 15.4.2011 in the aforesaid regard.

Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned amicus curiae has filed an affidavit giving details pertaining to the land of sewage farm which was acquired in 1915 and the diversion of the land for other purposes including transfer of 45 hectares of land by Nagar Nigam, Allahabad for construction of housing colony. Learned Amicus Curiae has also brought on record the Government order dated 31.7.2000 by which the State Government has imposed restriction on constructions within 200 meters from the river bank with the object of saving river Ganges from pollution. Decision was however, taken that relaxation can be granted to Math, Ashram and temple in certain condition. The decision of the Board meeting of the Allahabad Development Authority dated 3.4.2005 has also been brought on record in which a decision was taken that no permission shall be granted for any construction of house within 200 meters of highest flood level of river Ganges. The relaxation for Math etc. was continued. Learned Amicus Curiae has also brought on record the decision of the Committee of Allahabad Development Authority deciding the objection on master plan 2021 specially the decision of the committee on item No. 45. From decision taken by the Committee at item No. 45, it appears that application was made by the Manager, Sahara India Commercial praying for land use as commercial in Mauja Mavaiya and Mavaiya Devrakh Uperhar Tahsil Karchana on total 133 acres of land. In the decision it has been resolved that upto 200 meters from the river bank, no construction of any kind would be permissible and for next 300 meters constructions can be permitted only in special circumstances. The Board refused permission to change the land use as residential. It is useful to quote the decision of the Committee:

"izkf/kdj.k cksMZ ds iwoZ cSBd ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj gkb;sLV QYMZ ysoy dks ns[krs gq, ca/kk jksM dk ,ykbesaV gksxkA egk;kstuk esa tks ca/kk jksM dk ,ykbesUV fn[kk;k x;k gS oks mldh iqf"V Hkh ,jhxs'ku foHkkx ls dj fy;k tk;s rFkk 'kklu ds vkns'k ds vuqlkj ca/kk jksM ds lkFk tk unh rVh; fodkl ds fy, 200 eh0 rd dksbZ fuekZ.k ugha gksxk rFkk vxys 300 eh0 esa dksbZ fo'ks"k Hkw&mi;ksx vuqeU; fd, d;s gSaA blds vfrfjDr iwoZ egk;kstuk lhost QkeZ] xzhu csYV ,oa QYMZ bQDVsM ,fj;k iznf'kZr Fkk rFkk 'kklukns'k ds vuqlkj ;gka xzhu csYV ;Fkkor unh rVh; fodkl ds vUrxZr j[kk x;k gS mudk vf/kdrj LFky bl {ks= esa vkrk gSA mijksDr 'kklukns'kksa ds vk/kkj ij bl {ks= dks vkoklh; djuk mi;qDr ugha gksxkA izkf/kdj.k cksMZ bl ij fopkj djuk pkgsA"

Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the Allahabad Development Authority referring to affidavit filed in support of his application, has submitted that 45 hectares of land was got transferred by the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad in favour of Allahabad Development Authority on 25.5.2005 for consideration of Rs. 11 crores. He submits that in Public Interest Litigation being writ petition No. 54654 of 2009 in Re: Sewage Farm, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation with the observation that the land acquired by one public purpose can be very well utilised for another public purpose. He further submits that another writ petition No. (PIL) 1408 of 2011 has been filed restraining the Allahabad Development Authority from constructing New Prayag Avas Yojna as well as the private company which is making construction near the banks of river Ganges, which Public Interest Litigation is pending and counter affidavit has been called. Learned counsel for the Allahabad Development Authority submits that sufficient land is available for construction of sewage treatment plant and transfer of land was rightly made in favour of Allahabad Development Authority. The judgment and order dated 26.5.2010 in writ petition No. 54654 of 2009 has been referred to and relied.

Learned Counsel for the Allahabad Development Authority has prayed that the order dated 28.3.2011 imposing restriction on construction within 500 meters from mid stream of the river be withdrawn and Allahabad Development Authority be permitted to proceed with its project of constructing a housing colony on the river bank of Yamuna near Sangam in city of Allahabad.

The pollution in the river water of Ganges has arisen to an alarming situation. The apex Court in in M.C. Mehta case reported in (1987) 4 Supreme Court Cases 463 had taken very serious note of the pollution in river Ganges. Following observations were made by the apex Court.

"It is the popular belief that the river Ganga is the purifier of all but we are now led to the situation that action has to be taken to prevent the pollution of the water of the river Ganga since we have reached a stage that any further pollution of the river water is likely to lead to a catastrophe. There are today large towns inhabited by millions of people on the banks of the river Ganga. There are also large industries on its banks. Sewage of the towns and cities on the banks of the river and the trade effluents of the factories and other industries are continuously being discharged into the river. It is the complaint of the petitioner that neither the government nor the people are giving adequate attention to stop the pollution of the river Ganga. Steps have, therefore, to be taken for the purpose of protecting the cleanliness of the stream in the river Ganga, which is in fact the life sustainer of a large part of the northern India."

In the affidavit filed by Allahabad Development Authority dated 21.4.2011, the Allahabad Development Authority itself has brought on record the affidavit of Nagar Nigam, Allahabad which gives the fact regarding the situation of river pollution in river Ganges. The affidavit of Nagar Nigam sworn by Shiv Lakhan Yadav, Legal Advisor, Nagar Nigam Allahabad filed in PIL No. 54654 of 2009 notices that there are 57 Nalas open drain which are discharging untreated water in river Ganges and Yamuna. It has also noticed that total capacity of treatment plant in Allahabad is only 89 MLD and total untreated discharge is 228 MLD. According to admission of Nagar Nigam itself 120 MLD untreated is being discharged in river Ganges and 108 MLD untreated is discharged in river Yamuna. Following was stated in paragraphs 6,7 and 8:

" 6. That as per detail Number of Nalas are 57 (44 are discharging in Ganga river and 13 are discharging in Yamuna river), total discharge of Untreated water is 228 MLD (120 MLD in Ganga river and 108 MLD in Yamuna river) and capacity of treatment plants is 89 MLD (60 MLD Naini and 29 MLD Salory).

7. That at present out of 228 MLD of untreated discharge water only 89 MLD is being treated as stated above. However schemes of 5 treatment plant has been sanctioned amounting to 355.98 Crores which will treat 60 MLD of untreated water. Under JAICA aided scheme Numayadahi capacity 50 MLD, Kodra capacity 25 MLD, Pongat capacity 10 MLD and Naini capacity 20 MLD amounting 336.07 Crores had been submitted to State Government for submission to Government of India.

8. That as it has ben demonstrated that the total untreated sewage discharge will be covered by different treatment plants to be commissioned at different places by 2013, the land transferred to Allahabad Development Authority is not required for sewage farming, as was previously done before 1985."

The said figures have been given on the basis of the report of the year 2009. No further sewage treatment plant or any other mechanism has been generated. Untreated water is constantly and regularly discharged in river Ganges and Yamuna. The apex Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, reported in (1988) 1 Supreme Court Cases 471 held that all municipal Boards which have jurisdiction over the areas through which the river Ganga flows have to take effective steps for undertaking different works in sewerage system. It is useful to quote the directions issued in the aforesaid case in paragraphs 17 and 26.

" 17. 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 Maha;alika should submit its proposals to the State Board within six months from today.

26. 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."

277 acres of land was acquired in the year 1915 and 1941 for sewage farm. Nagar Nigam, Allahabad, which was under obligation to utilise the land for the purpose of treating the untreated water have failed to perform its duty. Nagar Nigam has very conveniently in 2005 transferred 45 hectares of land to Allahabad Development Authority and Allahabad Development Authority has decided to construct a housing colony on 45 hectares of land situated on the river bank of Yamuna near Sangam (Where Ganga and Yamuna meet). As noticed above in the PIL writ petition No. 54654 of 2009, this Court has passed the order dated 26.5.2010. In the aforesaid writ petition, the Division Bench noticed the issue involved to the following effect:

"The only question involved in this case is as to whether the land, which has been acquired for one public purpose, can be converted for another public purpose or not."

The Division Bench noticed that out of the total land only 45 hectares of land has been given for the purpose of housing colony, whereas the entire land was originally acquired for the purpose of sledge farm. The Division Bench made following observations:

"Factually, learned counsel for the Allahabad Development Authority has come forward with a case that out of the total land, only 45 hectare land has been given for the purpose of housing colony though the entire land was originally acquired for the purpose of sledge farm. According to him, the mechanism between such period and the present period has changed. The modern equipments do not require so much land for the purpose, for which the same was acquired and, accordingly, the land in excess of 45 hectares can be utilised for the same. We do not find any logic standing in the way of process of public purpose if no hindrance is being caused to the original public purpose, particularly when we find that all the governmental authorities, being Allahabad Development Authority, Nagar Nigam, Jal Nigam and Environment Department are present before us and nobody is standing in the way but the Court suo motu has taken cognizance in the matter on the earlier occasion. The issue raised in the form of public interest litigation, on which suo motu cognizance has been taken, stands resolved."

From the above judgment of the Division Bench, it appears that Division Bench in the said judgment held that the land in excess of 45 hectares can be utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. It was not brought before the Division Bench that prior to transfer of 45 hectares of land, the large portion of the area was already transferred for other purposes which has been detailed in the affidavit of Nagar Nigam. The Division Bench passed the order on the premise that rest of the land except 45 hectares, is still available for sewage farm. We however, in this petition cannot take any decision contrary to that which was taken by the Division Bench on 26.5.2010 nor in this writ petition we can entertain any issue regarding transfer of 45 hectares of land to the Allahabad Development Authority by Nagar Nigam. But the question as to what measures should be taken for checking the pollution in river Ganges is the main subject of present writ petition. In that regard we can proceed to examine and take appropriate measures so that river Ganges may not be further polluted. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the State Government taken in the meeting dated 15.4.2011 as referred above. From the aforesaid proceedings dated 15.4.2011, it appears that 13.88 hectares of land which was given for fish farm be asked to be returned from Fisheries Department. It was also observed that for extension capacity of sewage treatment plant, land is available.

Learned amicus curiae has also pointed out that another decision has been taken by administration to construct the housing colony in the locality Ganga Nagar on the bank of river Ganga.
Ganges plain in the northern India has been always treated to be most fertile area. Due to increase of population enormous and unregulated and unplanned constructions have begun on both sides of river Ganges, which is continuous and unabated process. It has been noticed that in highest flood of 1978, large number of villages on the bank of river Ganges had submerged. Learned Amicus Curiae has brought on the record a booklet issued by the District Administration Allahabad 'Badh Prabandh Yojna 2011-2012' in which flood affected villages have been mentioned and the villages Jahangirabad and Mavaiya, where the sewage farm land is situate have been included in the villages which are affected by Ganga flood.
Unabated and enormous construction on the river bank is also one of the source of increasing pollution in river water and a source for throwing untreated sewage dirt in the river with no mechanism to check. As noticed above, Allahabad Development Authority while rejecting the application of Sahara Commercial Corporation for permitting the change of land use as residential in villages mentioned therein, recorded that within 200 meters from highest flood level, construction is wholly prohibited and within next 300 meters permission be granted only in special circumstances. Restriction in making construction of housing colony within 500 meters of highest flood level of river is necessary and mandatory to check the further pollution which may be caused by such housing colonies. We have noticed that in spite of repeated directions, neither the Nagar Nigam nor the State of U.P. has been able to come with any measure to check release of untreated sewage in river Ganges. 134 MLD untreated sewage, according to own case of Nagar Nigam is being discharged in river Ganges daily and according to the respondent new sewage treatment plant of the capacity 60 MLD shall be commissioned by 2013. New sewage treatment plant which has been mentioned and proposed has yet not started and we have reasonable doubt as to whether it will be able to function by 2013. Stopping construction up to 500 meters from highest flood level on the banks of both the rivers Ganges and also on the part of river Yamuna adjoining Sangam has to be directed in the city of Allahabad. The earlier order dated 28.3.2011 however requires modification.
We thus direct that no construction shall be undertaken by the Allahabad Development authority or by any private builders within 500 meters of highest flood level of river Ganges in city of Allahabad as well as part of river Yamuna adjoining the river Ganges (Sangam). The Allahabad Development Authority and the district administration shall ensure that no construction be made in the aforesaid area. We however, give liberty to any aggrieved person to make appropriate application in this petition with regard to above restrictions, if he feels so aggrieved.

Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the tanneries has submitted that a date be also fixed for considering the tanneries matter. We fix 20.5.2011 for consideration of tanneries matter.

As agreed by learned counsel for the parties,next date in the present case is fixed as 13.5.2011 at 2 p.m.

Learned Special Counsel appearing for the State as well as learned Additional Advocate General referring to the affidavit has submitted that detail timetable is being given for repair of the roads which were dug during the laying down of the sewer line. Learned Amicus Curiae as well as other counsels have submitted that there is no proper repairing of the roads and pits are lying on the road unattended by the authorities. Although in earlier affidavit, it was stated that repairing of the road shall be completed by February, 2011 but according to the own case of the respondents, the repairing of the road has not yet been started. We are of the view that authorities of U.P. Jal Nigam, who is executing agency for laying down the sewer, and the P.W.D. are slack and are not making proper supervision which they are expected with regard to repairing of the road. We direct all the authorities including the authorities of U.P. Jal Nigam and P.W.D. to take appropriate steps regarding restoration of the roads in city of Allahabad, which were got dug during the laying of the sewer line. Appropriate affidavit in this regard be filed by U.P. Jal Nigam, P.W.D. as well as State of U.P. by the next date.
Order Date :- 22.4.2011
________________________________________