- (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the Dhanbad Municipality, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand and Mr.Jerath, counsel for the Pollution Control Board.
(2.) THE petitioner raised objections to the construction of a sulabh shauchalaya within the Dhanbad Municipality. The petitioner is seen to be the owner of a residential house lying adjacent to the site wherein the sulabh shauchaluya was proposed to be constructed. The petitioner approached this Court on a plea that public interest will suffer and pollution will increase if the shauchalaya is established in the site in question. Various contentions were sought to be raised by counsel for the petitioner with particular reference to Sec.215 of the Blhar Municipal Manual and Sec.25 of the Wafer (Prevention and .Control of Pollution) Act. The Dhanbad Municipality appeared and contended that the construction of the shauchalaya had progressed to a great extent and that there was no ground to interfere by this Court. It was contended that the people of the locality have been using the site for releasing themselves and the waste materials were being dumped as the site leading to pollution and it was in the interests of the inhabitants of the locality and the Municipality to have the shauchalaya constructed and duly maintained. The allegation that public nuisance will be caused and that there will be pollution was denied. After hearing counsel, on an earlier occasion, we felt that it had to be ensured that there would be no pollution resulting from the establishment of the shauchalaya. So on 10.2.2004 the Division Bench passed the following order; "The matter was heard for some time. One point sought to be made on behalf of the petitioner was that a latrine was sought to be constructed adjacent to a pipe carrying drinking water as part of the water supply scheme in Dhanbad Municipality, The observations relating to a representation made by an individual in An -nexure -4 are referred to in support. It is not clear what the stand of the Deputy Commissioner and the special Officer, Dhanbad Municipality is regarding this aspect and the argument on behalf of the petitioner that the permission of the State Pollution Control Board is needed in the light of the relevant provisions of the Water Act. Counsel for Dhanbad Municipality seeks time to get specific information on the existence of the drinking water underground pipe and the distance between it and the present shauchalaya sought to be established and the impact of the system sought to be established on the pipeline allegedly already existing for carrying drinking water."
(3.) PURSUANT to this order, the State Pollution Control Board visited the site with notice to the concerned parties and has filed a report before us. In that report, the Pollution Control Board has suggested that there was not much threat of pollution if the shauchalaya is constructed. But it noted that the work for decentralized effluent treatment plant is yet to be started. 1L also noticed that the land is at present used for garbage disposal. After making some suggestions, it was stated that there will he no environmental pollution; but it was emphasised that after the commissioning of the sulabh complex with full fledged decentralized effluent treatment facilities with concept of zero discharge, there will be improvement in the environment of the locality considerably. But the Pollution Control Board indicated that the maintenance part of the sulabh shauchalaya was also a matter of consideration from the environmental point of view. The report given by the Honorary Chairman of the sulabh International Social Service Organization giving certain details was also annexed as Annexure 2 to the report.;