Junagadh Municipal Commissioner Oblivious Of Responsibilities Under Plastic Waste Management Rules: Gujarat High Court

Taking note of an inspection report on units processing plastic waste in Junagadh, the Gujarat High Court expressing its concern said that the manner in which these units were operating without requisite permissions under the relevant Rules, made it evident that the city Municipal Commissioner was oblivious of his responsibility as the head of the municipal corporation.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi was hearing a public interest litigation plea highlighting the non-disposal of plastic waste around the temples on Girnar Hill, Junagadh, which is an eco-sensitive zone.

Units processing plastic waste did not have permission

The court in its September 17 order noted the GPCB's submission that on inspection it was found that none of the three units where waste is processed have taken any permission from the board to carry out the same. Nor was there any documentary evidence found substantiating the quantity of the waste processed by them, pursuant to which the board issued a show-cause notice to them.

The court said, that the inspection reports of the GPCB and the details given in the corporation's annual reports reflected that both the authorities (Corporation and GPCB) are in "utter defiance" of the provisions of the Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016.

It further observed "responsibility of the local body" fixed under Rule 6 for setting up infrastructure for segregation, collection, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of the plastic waste either on its own or by engaging agencies had not been discharged in a proper manner.

"It is evident that three facilities created by the Junagadh Municipal Corporation either on its own and by engagement of private operators, the provisions of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 has been utterly violated," the court added.

Municipal Commissioner oblivious of his responsibility under relevant Rules

The court further noted that from the "manner" in which three facilities have been created/hired/engaged by the Corporation, it was evident that the Municipal Commissioner is "oblivious of his responsibility being the head of the Junagadh Municipal Corporation" under the 2016 Rules.

It thereafter said, "For the startling facts which have come on record in the inspection report of the GPCB, it is evident that the Municipal Commissioner, Junagadh Municipal Corporation was oblivious of the requirement of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, when establishing Material Recovery Facility (MRF) without any approval/permission of the GPCB and engaging private operators who do not have requisite permission of the GPCB."

The high court called for documents on the process of engagement of the three operators managing the plastic waste collected in the city. It further called for the entire original record pertaining to the grant of the contract to the operators. The court also called for annual reports submitted by the contractor and the City Corporation as per the rules along with the Municipal Commissioner's affidavit.

GPCB failed in discharging its responsibilities under Rules

With respect to the GPCB, the court said that it seemed that the board had "simply forwarded" the annual reports submitted by the corporation, to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). It said that none of the authorities were informed that plastic waste disposal was done in "utter violation" of the 2016 Rules.

In response to this, the court had noted, that what was brought before it was that the work of segregation and plastic waste disposal on a pilot basis has been allocated by the Standing Committee of the Corporation to an Outsourcing agency; how the corporation would provide a shed with other basic facilities among other points.

The court had however noted, that there was no response to its "precise query" on how plastic waste disposal is being carried out by the agency hired by the Corporation and whether the exercise conforms to the guidelines issued by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) and the Central Government.

Noting that a proper response was not forthcoming from the Municipal Commissioner, the high court had then asked the GPCB to inspect the sites where waste is disposed of and submit a report.

The high court had then taken a "strong exception" to the manner in which the Commissioner–IAS officer had given his responses to the court. It said that the response of the Commissioner not only reflected the "apathy" of the concerned officer but also "disrespect to the Court". The court said this after noting the corporation's submission that it had sent a team to physically inspect two units in July and August which had found that steps had been taken to sort the plastic waste. The court had then however noted that there was no report by the Commissioner on whether the team found the manner of handling of the waste conformed to the guidelines issued by the GPCB and CPCB.

Case title: Amit Manibhai Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Others

Click Here To Download Order