IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIN

WRIT PETITION NO. 2116 OF 2005

Kirit Somaiya                                                                                     ..... Petitioner

            Versus        

State of Maharashtra and Ors.                                                        ..... Respondents

Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Madhavi Diwan i/b M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr. R.M. Sawant, Government Pleader with Mr. K.R. Belosey, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6.

Ms. Priti Purandare for Respondent No. 3.

Mr. B.A. Desai, Additional Solicitor General with Ms. Poornima Kantharia for Respondent Nos. 7, 10 and 11.

Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondent No. 8.

CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J. &

                  S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.

DATE     : 31^ST AUGUST, 2005.

P.C.:

            Pursuant to the directions of this Court on 17^th August, 2005, the Petitioner has placed comprehensive action plan.  In the plan, original status of Mithi River has been highlitted even the course of the River has been demonstrated.  The action plan shows present status of the River and revival plan of the River.  A large number of photographs taken only in the last week have tried to demonstrate what was the original status of the River and what is the present status of River now.  The Petitioner has also given comprehensive suggestions regarding revival of the River.

2.                  According to the Petitioner, the River can be revived provided following steps are immediately taken – (i) prevention of dumping of solid waste, (ii) desilting of the River, (iii) stoppage of encroachment of hutment, (iv) prevention of garbage dumping, (v) control of waste processor, (vi) control of domestic sewage, (vii) prevention of illegal oil processors and industrial manufacturing, and processing units, (viii) widening of River, control of pollution and prevention of illegal diversions of the River by Airport Authority and MMRDA.

3.                  The Petitioner suggested what action should be taken by the Airport Authority, State Government, MMRDA, Collector, Bombay Municipal Corporation and Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.  According to the Petitioner, if aforementioned steps are taken, the original status of the River can be revived.

4.                  In order to redress the problem of pollution and degeneration of the Mithi River caused by a variety of reasons such as the discharge of industrial effluents, oil, domestic waste, dumping, diversions, etc.  and in order to put into motion a process for the revival and prevention of the River, some directions are necessary to be passed.

5.                  We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.  The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, learned Advocate General, learned counsel appearing for the Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board, learned counsel appearing for the Bombay Municipal Corporation and learned counsel appearing for MMRDA have no objection if the following directions are passed.  Consequently, in the larger public interest, we pass the following directions :-

                                                              i.      The Respondents are directed to identify all illegal, unlicensed commercial units on the banks of Mithi River.  The concerned authorities are directed to give them notices within ten days from today and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter.  This exercise shall be carried out by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board.

                                                            ii.      The Respondents shall take all necessary steps to ensure a check on the daily discharge of waste, effluents, dumping activities and prosecute the offenders under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.  This exercise must be carried out by Respondent No. 8.  We direct Respondent No. 3 – BMC to provide proper garbage collection system to prevent people from dumping garbage into the Mithi River.

                                                          iii.      Respondent No. 3 is also directed to ensure that no new encroachments or industrial activities on the riverbank are permitted.  No new licences for industrial activities on the bank of the River shall be issued without the leave of this Court.  Respondent No. 3 shall ensure that adequate number of temporary latrines are constructed to avoid people using the River/its banks as a public toilet.

6.                  The learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the aforementioned directions shall be strictly complied with.

7.                  We direct Respondent No.3 – Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay – and Respondent No. 8 – Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board – to file reply-affidavit within three weeks indicating whether the aforementioned directions have been complied with ?

8.                  The Airport Authority of India is also directed to file reply – affidavit within three weeks.  No further time shall be granted.

9.                  Mr. Ravi Kadam, the Advocate General, has placed on record a notification dated 19^th August, 2005 by which “Mithi River Development and Protection Authority” has been set up under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister and a meeting is scheduled tomorrow.  The learned Advocate General is also directed to inform the Court on the next date of hearing what steps have been taken by the High Powered Committee.  Let the affidavit in this regard be filed by the concerned Secretary.

10.             We would like to place on record our appreciation for preparation of comprehensive action report by the Petitioner on our instance.

11.             List this Petition again on 26^th September, 2005.

CHIEF JUSTICE

S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.