The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on Thursday took suo motu cognisance of the death of Yuvraj Mehta, who drowned in a waterlogged trench in Noida’s Sector 150, and issued notices to several departments of the Uttar Pradesh government, including the district magistrate of Noida and principal secretary (environment) of the state government. The body observed that the incident raised serious concerns over compliance with environmental norms.
The principal bench, headed by justice Prakash Shrivastava and expert member A Senthil Vel, passed the order after taking note of news reports indicating alleged lapses in stormwater management and prolonged waterlogging that led to the tragedy in the early hours of January 17.
Based on the news reports, the tribunal observed that the land where the incident occurred was originally allotted for a private mall project but had, over the years, turned into a waterlogged pond due to the accumulation of rainwater and wastewater discharged from nearby housing societies. The bench recorded that a stormwater management plan prepared by the irrigation department in 2015 “remained on papers despite multiple rounds of surveys and site inspections”, and that delays in remedial measures led to severe waterlogging in the area.
The NGT has impleaded five respondents in the matter – the Noida Authority, the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, the irrigation department, the principal secretary (environment), Uttar Pradesh, and the district magistrate of Gautam Budh Nagar.
It directed them to submit their replies at least one week prior to the next hearing scheduled on April 10.
The order further referred to documents indicating that the irrigation department had proposed a head regulator to divert stormwater into the Hindon river and had received funds from the Noida Authority in 2016 to undertake a survey and prepare the design for the proposed regulator.
Referring to the news report, the tribunal noted that the delay in taking up remedial measures had led to severe waterlogging, with basements of several nearby housing societies flooding as rainwater could not be discharged into the river in the absence of a regulator.
The bench said that the matter “indicates violation of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986” and raises “substantial issues relating to compliance with the environmental norms and implementation of the provisions of scheduled enactment”.
(With inputs from Lucknow)