JUDGMENT
T.S. Thakur, J.
1. These writ petitions purport to have been filed in public interest. They bring into focus what is according to the petitioners, a total lack of concern shown by the respondents towards the issue of water management in the city of Delhi. The petitioners allege that according to an Economic Survey conducted in the year 2006, the distribution losses of potable water in the city on account of leakage of pipes, pilferage, overflowing of storage tanks accounted for as high as 40%. These losses, the petitioners argue, ought to be minimized by taking proper corrective measures in that regard not only by Government of Delhi but also the Delhi Jal Board. The petitioners also point out that the Government of Delhi have been making a budget allocation for replacement of old pipes with an estimated length of 10000 Kms. The progress made in that direction however has remained obscure from public view. The petitioners’ apprehension is that on account of an unholy nexus between the contractors who execute the replacement work and the government agencies, the money set apart for such replacement may be siphoned off.
2. The petitioners further point out that underground water level is declining on account of extensive drawing of sub-soil water and also on account of the water bodies getting unauthorizedly occupied and used for construction purposes. All this is happening according to the petitioners’ despite the judicial pronouncements of the apex court and other courts of the country that water bodies cannot be included in the definition of ‘land’ and deserve to be suitably protected. Reliance in this regard is placed by the petitioners upon a decision of this Court in WP(C) 8227/2002 titled Residents Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors.
3. The petitioners further point out that according to a survey conducted by the respondents, there were nearly 629 water bodies in existence in the City out of which 159 are unrevivable, 69 have been encroached upon and 228 have dried up. It is according to the petitioners absolutely necessary to restore these water bodies and to recharge the wells in order to ensure that the sub soil water level does not further fall. The petitioners have also emphasised the need to recycle water and pointed out that in some States, the authorities have made it compulsory for any building discharging more than 10000 liter water daily to recycle water. In the State of Tamilnadu, rain water harvesting has been, according to the petitioners, made compulsory for all government buildings. There is no reason, according to the petitioners, why a similar approach should not be adopted in Delhi also where a large number of Government buildings exist and water harvesting and recycling would greatly help supplement the Government effort in providing potable water to its population. The petitioners have also suggested that rain water harvesting could be made essential even for flyovers and roads and the whole process could be envisaged at the stage of planning and design work. In WP(C) 3637/1998, the petitioner has made a grievance about the misuse of storm water drains for emptying sewage which eventually drains into the Yamuna river or the water bodies and makes any cleaning operation in the same so much more difficult.
4. This Court had by order dated 1st March, 2006 constituted a nodal agency headed by the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi to coordinate with the Departments concerned to deal with the problem pointed out by the petitioners including discharge of sewage and sullage in storm water drains which ultimately pollute river Yamuna. The court had emphasised the need for the authorities to act in coordination so as to achieve the target of cleaning of the river and prevent sewage and sullage form pouring inside the storm water drains. It had also noted the assurance given by the officers who were present in the Court that they would act promptly and that the Delhi Jal Board would appoint consultants by 31st March, 2006 for submitting a feasibility and study report with regard to the mechanism and method of treating the problem of sewage and sullage. The court had expressed the view that the consultants ought to submit their report within four months whereupon the respondents would indicate the time-frame within which the same would be implemented. The nodal agency was directed to constantly monitor the progress made by the concerned agencies and submit monthly reports to this Court. The Committee appointed by the Court included the Commissioner of MCD, CEO of Delhi Jal Board and the Divisional Commissioner apart from Secretary of the State Pollution Control Board.
5. When the matter came up before us on 25th April, 2007, we had directed the parties to identify the broad objectives which the present proceedings aim at achieving and also to file a synopsis to enable the Court to examine whether the said objectives were attainable and if necessary to appoint a Committee to monitor all steps proposed to be taken for the achievement thereof. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have, pursuant to the said direction, filed a synopsis reiterating the need to rescue the water bodies that have been occupied illegally or have dried up on account of official apathy towards them and the need to harvest rain water as also recycle water in government and other buildings with a discharge of over 10000 liters. The petitioners suggest that the process of monitoring of the progress by the respondents in the above direction ought to continue because it is only if the progress is so monitored that the respondents would make some headway in that direction. The respondents have also pursuant to the previous order passed by this Court filed an affidavit sworn by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Additional Secretary (Water), Department of Urban Development, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi in which it is inter alia stated that the Chief Secretary has, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court constituting the nodal agency held half a dozen meetings with Divisional Commissioner, MCD, DDA, ASI, IIT, DPCC, PWD and Delhi Jal Board officials, the minutes whereof have been regularly filed before this Court. The affidavit goes on to state that the Chief Secretary has comprehensively reviewed the progress made regarding the plan for providing sewage facilities to all rural villages. Tender documents for all the 189 villages in Delhi have been received from the consultants and the proposals made in the same are being technically scrutinized. The affidavit states that tender action will be initiated from June, 2007 onwards. The villages have been, according to the affidavit, divided into three categories, i.e. 74 villages will be connected with the existing peripheral sewage system, 66 villages will be covered through 37 waste stabilization ponds and 49 villages will be covered through 19 villages treatment plants. The affidavit expresses the hope that an appropriate sewage disposal mechanism for all 189 villages will be in place by the end of 2009.
6. It is further stated by the respondents in the affidavit mentioned above that the protection of water bodies has also engaged the attention of the Committee headed by the Chief Secretary who has directed that various steps like construction of boundary walls/pathways, removal of blockages, trapping of silt, deepening of water bodies and plantation shall be undertaken around the water bodies. All the agencies controlling the water bodies are in keeping with the said direction initiating appropriate action. The actions initiated by different agencies along with the time frame for their completion has already placed on record.
7. As regards the issue of rain water harvesting, the affidavit points out that the same has been discussed and necessary directions have been issued for implementation of the same in institutional and private buildings. The Chief Secretary has, according to the affidavit, fixed a schedule for regular review and monitoring of rain water harvesting initiatives and plans of all departments and agencies on a monthly basis. The affidavit goes on to state that since the entire exercise is being monitored comprehensively by a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, any other mechanism introduced to monitor the progress of the existing scheme would dilute the authority of the Committee already nominated by this Court. The affidavit prays for the monitoring work to be left to the Chief Secretary and the Committee headed by him. The affidavit further states that if any further issues arise for consideration or are raised by the petitioners, the same shall also be suitably examined by the Committee.
8. In the light of the steps that have been taken by the respondents and the fact that the entire exercise and progress made in that direction is being monitored by the Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, nothing further in our opinion needs to be done in the present proceedings. These proceedings have in fact served the purpose for which the same were instituted inasmuch as the authorities concerned have been sensitized about their duties and an action plan drawn up for achieving the broad objectives that have been identified. What now remains to be done is execution of the proposals which is a matter that need not be necessarily monitored closely by this Court. This is so particularly when the Committee appointed by this Court is doing a satisfactory work in the matter and monitoring the progress of work on a regular basis. All that we need say is that the Committee appointed by this Court would continue to monitor the progress made in the execution of the plans and the schemes that have been formulated and ensure that the objections enumerated above which are laudable in themselves are achieved in good time. Minor issues such as whether a water body can be retrieved and if so to what extent are also matters that can in our opinion be left to the Committee to be suitably handled at its own level. We have no doubt that in case the petitioners have any concrete proposals or suggestions to make on the subject, they can do so before the Committee, in which event, the Committee would certainly take up the said proposals and suggestions also for discussion and take suitable decisions on the same at the appropriate level. Beyond that, it is in our opinion neither necessary nor proper for us to say anything at this stage. The writ petitions are with the above observations, disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9. The nodal agency shall however continue to submit a six monthly report on the progress made by it which report shall then be put up in chambers before the bench hearing petitions filed in public interest for such orders as may be considered just and proper. Learned Counsel for the parties shall be free to inspect the six monthly reports as and when the same are received. No. costs.