The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday appointed a commissioner to inspect the Dadumajra dumping ground in Chandigarh and ascertain whether the Municipal Corporation’s claims regarding clearance of waste were factually correct.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry directed Advocate Tanu Bedi to visit the site at 5 pm the same day and submit a report by May 29, along with photographs from different angles depicting the extent to which the area had been cleared.
The order came during hearing of petitions concerning the Dadumajra garbage dump, where petitioner-in-person advocate Amit Sharma alleged that the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh had repeatedly misled the court since 2017 through false affidavits and incorrect representations regarding the status of waste processing and conditions at the site.
During the hearing, the Municipal Corporation placed before the bench photographs, drone footage and a proposed site plan indicating that biodegradable legacy waste spread across nearly 25 acres was being manually processed and cleared. The civic body submitted that around 550 workers had been deployed along with vehicles and JCB machines for removal of non-biodegradable waste.
Appearing for the corporation, senior advocate Gaurav Mohunta submitted that nearly five to seven acres had already been cleared and approximately half an acre was being cleared every day. The corporation also placed a future utilisation plan for the site, including a compressed biogas plant proposed through Indian Oil Corporation Limited, a sanitary landfill area, segregation facilities and plantation over nearly 33 per cent of the land.
The bench, however, repeatedly questioned the long-term viability of retaining waste-processing activity near a densely populated residential area.
At one point, the Chief Justice observed, “Population has now come there”, while also remarking that the area should be converted into a green patch with trees.
The corporation responded that Chandigarh’s waste had to be processed somewhere and claimed that no fresh dumping would take place at the site as processing capacity now exceeded waste generation.
Strongly contesting these submissions, Sharma told the court that the civic body was attempting to create an inaccurate impression that the dumping ground had substantially been cleared.
Displaying photographs and videos recorded on Monday noon, Sharma submitted that large quantities of garbage still remained at the site and that residents continued to suffer due to foul smell and pollution.
“There is complete filth there. You’ve got plastic, clothes— you name it, you’ve got it,” Sharma told the bench while referring to videos and photographs taken from nearby houses.
He further alleged that the Municipal Corporation had adopted a “recurring pattern” of filing misleading affidavits in order to secure disposal of the litigation. “They spent Rs 26 lakh on a tender report and then they junked the report… Now they say they have come up with a new project, another Rs 26 lakh gone,” he submitted.
Accusing the civic body of deliberate concealment, Sharma submitted: “They have been filing affidavits which are false, fabricated, misleading, and I say this with complete responsibility.”
He also challenged the corporation’s long-standing claim that there was no foul smell emanating from the dumping ground.
“They have been saying this since 2017. There is no smell in the garbage. It is bizarre. It is beyond baffling,” he submitted, adding that members of the Bar who accompanied him to the site could testify to the unbearable conditions.
Sharma also alleged that despite spending large sums on consultancy and tender reports, the authorities continued to place inaccurate information before the court.
Taking note of the controversy, the court ordered constitution of a one-person commission to conduct a spot inspection and verify the correctness of the corporation’s claims.
During the hearing, advocate Molly Lakhanpal, appearing for petitioner Deepti Singh, also referred to the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, and argued that the site itself violated environmental norms. She submitted that Rule 11 required maintenance of a buffer zone around such facilities and contended that the plant could not legally continue at the present location due to nearby habitation.
The matter will now be taken up after submission of the commissioner’s report on May 29.
