Shail Samachar Newspaper

शिमला/शैल। जयराम सरकार ने प्रधान सचिव के. के. पंत केन्द्रिय प्रतिनियुक्ति पर जाने के परिणामस्वरूप उनके विभाग दूसरे अधिकारियों को बांटने के साथ ही शीर्ष प्रशासनिक अधिकारियों के विभागों में थोड़ा फरेबदल भी किया है। इस फेरबदल में पर्यावरण विभाग और प्रदूषण नियन्त्रण बोर्ड के अध्यक्ष पद की जिम्मेदारी अतिरिक्त मुख्य सचिव प्रबोध सक्सेना को सौंपी है। सक्सेना के पास वित्त और कार्मिक विभागों की भी जिम्मेदारी है। सक्सेना एक योग्य अधिकारी हैं और इस नाते यह जिम्मेदारीयां उन्हें दिये जाने पर किसी को कोई एतराज नहीं हो सकता। फिर जब सरकार किसी अधिकारी को कोई जिम्मेदारी सौंपती है तो वह अधिकारी उससे इन्कार नहीं कर सकता यह एक स्थापित परम्परा है। लेकिन यह सरकार को देखना है कि जो आदेश वह कर रही वह कानून की नजर मे भी सही हैं या नही। यह सवाल इसलिये उठ रहा है क्योंकि प्रदूषण नियन्त्रण एक बहुत ही अहम और संवेदनशील विषय है। अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर प्रदूषण और पर्यावरण को लेकर हर स्तर पर चिन्ता और सरोकार व्यक्त किये जा रहे हैं। यह दोनां विषय बेहद तकनीकी बन चुके हैं। प्रदूषण पर नियन्त्रण रखने के लिये बनाये गये बोर्डों में विशेषज्ञ लोगों की नियुक्तियां की जायें और इनमें तैनात किये अध्यक्ष और सदस्य सचिव को बार-बार न बदला जाये यह नियुक्तियां कम से कम पांच वर्षां के लिये की जायें।
जब इन पदों पर नियुक्त लोगों को बार-बार बदला जाता है या विशेषज्ञ लोगों की नियुक्ति नहीं की जाती है तब इसका नुकसान कई पीढीयों तक को भुगतना पड़ता है। हिमाचल में ही पर्यावरण और प्रदूषण के मामलों में प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय से लेकर एनजीटी तक कई बार सरकार पर नाराज़गी जता चुके है। कसौली कांड से देश भर में प्रदेश की बदनामी हो चुकी है। कसौली प्रकरण में एनजीटी ने कुछ अधिकारियों को नामतः चिन्हित करके उनके खिलाफ कड़ी कारवाई करने के निर्देश सरकार को दिये थे जिन पर आज तक अमल नहीं हुआ है। धर्मशाला के मकलोड़ गंज प्रकरण में भी कई अधिकारियों के खिलाफ सर्वोच्च न्यायालय कारवाई किये जाने के लिये निर्देश दे चुका हैं। इस प्रकरण में शीर्ष अदालत जुर्माना तक लगा चुका है जिसे सरकारी खजाने से भरकर अधिकारियों को बचा लिया गया। अब ऊना के स्वां में रेत के लिये हुए अवैध खनन के मामले में एनजीटी प्रदूषण पर्यावरण और पुलिस तथा उद्योग विभागों को कड़ी फटकार लगा चुका है। इन विभागों के दोषी अधिकारियों को चिन्हित करके उन्हें सज़ा देने के निर्देश दे चुका है लेकिन सरकार पर इसका कोई असर नहीं हुआ है।
सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने 2017 में दिये फैसले में स्पष्ट कहा है कि प्रदूषण नियन्त्रण बोर्डों में छः माह के भीतर अध्यक्ष और सदस्यों की नियुक्यिं को लेकर स्पष्ट नियम बनाये जायें। शीर्ष अदालत ने सितम्बर 2017 में याचिका संख्या 1359 वि 2017 में यह निर्देश दिये है। इन निर्देशों पर यह कहा है सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में जो आज तक नहीं हुआ है। यह कहा है सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने  Unfortunately, not withstanding all these suggestions, recommendations and guidelines the SPCBs continue to be manned by persons who do not necessarily have the necessary expertise or professional experience to address the issues for which the SPCBs were established by law. The Tata Institute of Social Sciences in a Report published quite recently in 2013 titled “Environmental Regulatory Authorities in India: An Assessment of State Pollution Control Boards” had this to say about some of the appointments to the SPCBs:

“An analysis of data collected from State Pollution Control Boards, however, gives a contrasting picture. It has been observed that time and again across state governments have not been able to choose a qualified, impartial, and politically neutral person of high standing to this crucial regulatory post. The recent appointments of chairpersons of various State Pollution Control Boards like Karnataka (A a senior BJP leader), Himachal Pradesh (B a Congress party leader and former MLA), Uttar Pradesh (C appointed on the recommendation of SP leader X), Arunachal Pradesh (D a sitting NCP party MLA), Manipur Pollution Control Board (E a sitting MLA), Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (F a former bureaucrat) are in blatant violation of the apex court guidelines. The apex court has recommended that the appointees should be qualified in the field of environment or should have special knowledge of the subject. It is unfortunate that in a democratic set up, key enterprises and boards are headed by bureaucrats for over a decade. In this connection, it is very important for State Governments to understand that filling a key regulatory post with the primary intention to reward an ex-official through his or her appointment upon retirement, to a position for which he or she may not possess the essential overall qualifications, does not do justice to the people of their own states and also staffs working in the State Pollution Control Boards. The primary lacuna with this kind of appointment was that it did not evoke any trust in the people that decisions taken by an ex-official of the State or a former political leader, appointed to this regulatory post through what appeared to be a totally non-transparent unilateral decision. Many senior environmental scientists and other officers of various State Pollution Control Boards have expressed their concern for appointing bureaucrats and political leader as Chairpersons who they feel not able to create a favourable atmosphere and an effective work culture in the functioning of the board. It has also been argued by various environmental groups that if the government is unable to find a competent person, then it should advertise the post, as has been done recently by states like Odisha. However, State Governments have been defending their decision to appoint bureaucrats to the post of Chairperson as they believe that the vast experience of IAS officers in handling responsibilities would be easy. Another major challenge has been appointing people without having any knowledge in this field. For example, the appointment of G with maximum qualification of Class X as Chairperson of State Pollution Control Board of Sikkim was clear violation of Water Pollution and Prevention Act, 1974.”14
32. The concern really is not one of a lack of professional expertise – there is plenty of it available in the country–but the lack of dedication and willingness to take advantage of the resources available and instead benefit someone close to the powers that be. With this couldn’t-care-less attitude, the environment and public trust are the immediate casualties. It is unlikely that with such an attitude, any substantive effort can be made to tackle the issues of environment degradation and issues of pollution. Since the NGT was faced with this situation, we can appreciate its frustration at the scant regard for the law by some State Governments, but it is still necessary in such situations to exercise restraint as cautioned in State of U.P. v. Jeet S. Bisht.15
33. Keeping the above in mind, we are of the view that it would be appropriate, while setting aside the judgment and order of the NGT, to direct the Executive in all the States to frame appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules within six months, considering the institutional requirements of the SPCBs and the law laid down by statute, by this Court and as per the reports of various committees and authorities and ensure that suitable professionals and experts are appointed to the SPCBs. Any damage to the environment could be permanent and irreversible or at least long-lasting. Unless corrective measures are taken at the earliest, the State Governments should not be surprised if petitions are filed against the State for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto in respect of the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs. We make it clear that it is left open to public spirited individuals to move the appropriate High Court for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto if any person who does not meet the statutory or constitutional requirements is appointed as a Chairperson or a member of any SPCB or is presently continuing as such.