Junagadh Municipal Commissioner's Response Silent On Manner Of Plastic Waste Disposal By Hired Agencies: Gujarat HC Takes "Strong Exception"

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday took "strong exception" to Commissioner of Junagadh Municipal Corporation's affidavit, noting it was silent on the court's specific query on the manner in which plastic waste collected from the city and the Girnar Eco-Sensitive Zone, is recycled by the agencies hired by the corporation for this purpose.

The high court further in its order said that the response reflected the "apathy of the officer and disrespect to the specific directions issued by this court" (in its earlier orders), as he did not conduct any enquiry to satisfy himself about the manner in which plastic waste is being handled by the agencies.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi were 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.

During the hearing on Tuesday, advocate Amit Panchal, the petitioner in the matter, pointed to the high court's August 20 order stating that a "direction was given to commissioner to file an affidavit giving proper details" on this aspect.

Earlier the high court in its July 10 order directed the Junagadh Municipal Commissioner to file his "personal affidavit" bringing on record the "entire material" showing the "mode and manner" in which the plastic waste collected from the Eco-Sensitive Zone and the city is being recycled. The contracts entered into by the Corporation were also be to placed before the court.

On August 20, the high court in its order had said that "affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner, Junagadh Municipal Corporation was passed on in the Court, which was found having insufficient, incomplete information". The court thereafter granted two weeks time for filing an affidavit as per the July 10 order.

On Tuesday( September 3), after taking note of Junagadh Municipal Commissioner's affidavit, the Chief Justice orally said, "Why would municipal commissioner not state on oath what was transpired to him".

After the court was told that a team was constituted which had visited two units where plastic waste is being recycled by the outsourcing agencies, the Chief Justice further orally said, "What was the report given by the team? We are not looking to the report. The content of report should come in the affidavit...We are not giving you further time to file affidavit one after another, if you don't even understand what should come in the affidavit. This is your responsibility, you have given tender or contract to anyone to process plastic waste. That is only outsourcing. Your responsibility as municipal commissioner is to ensure that plastic waste is properly processed and is not absolved by giving tender, or this work by outsourcing...We are issuing personal notice to municipal commissioner, he is under contempt...Please don't emphasize on third party, we are not concerned with the third party...Twice we have given you time we are not getting it...We are not looking at the pages. We want a report, a response by the municipal commissioner. He is answerable to the court, he can't keep quiet by saying 'I have constituted team they have visited'".

The high court thereafter in its order dictated, "Inspite of sufficient time granted by us, twice, to the Municipal Commissioner, Junagadh Municipal Corporation who happens to be an IAS officer we fail to understand as to how his response has been brought before us by means of an affidavit which was sworn by municipal commissioner…pertinent is to note by order date 10-7-2024 we have directed municipal commissioner Junagadh to bring on record entire material showing the mode and manner in which the plastic waste collected from Girnar eco sensitive zone and city of Junagadh is being recycled. In response to the same only this much has been brought before us that the work of segregation and plastic waste disposal on pilot basis has been allocated by the standing committee of corporation by its resolution dated 5-3-2021 to an outsourcing agency".

The high court in its order further noted, that as per the affidavit, it had been resolved that the city corporation would provide a place with a shed and other basic facilities against the payment of "appropriate charges of the agency who would provide services of manual segregation at material recovery facility without any cost from the waste collected from Junagadh" and dumped at Hajiyani Baug transit point.

After saying so it is stated in the affidavit, the court noted in its order, that on July 16, 2021 a work order was issued to the agency entrusted for transportation of total waste from Hajiyani Baug transit point to material recovery facility and undertaking work of plastic waste disposal without at any cost by manual segregation, "thereby disposing of plastic waste as per guidelines of Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GBCB)" and the Centre.

The court noted that as per the affidavit there were certain extensions granted by the corporation to the concerned outsourcing agency.

"However there is no response to our precise query as to how the plastic waste disposal is being carried out by the agency and whether the exercise conforms to the guidelines issued by GPCB and centre as indicated in first work order issued on 16-7-2021. It is further stated that a team of the corporation has physically inspected two units on 8-7-2024 and 14-8-2024 and it was found that following steps have been taken for sorting of plastic waste, cleaning, heating and making lumps by cooling and selling the lumps thereafter. After stating the same, there is no response of Municipal Commissioner...whether team has found the manner in which plastic waste is being handled by two agencies, conforms to the requirement of guidelines issued by the GPCB and central government," the court said in its order.

The result is that the municipal commissioner, Junagadh "without application of his own independent mind" had "simply placed the facts and figures" before the court to form an opinion on whether the plastic waste is being handled by the agencies hired by the corporation in accordance with the guidelines, the court added.

"We take strong exception to the manner in which an officer of IAS cadre has given his response before the court. This response of municipal commissioner Junagadh Municipal Corporation, reflects apathy of the officer and disrespect to the specific directions issued by this court. The municipal commissioner in not forming any opinion on the report of the team and simply forwarding it to the court by means of his affidavit has violated the directions contained in order of July 10 as reiterated by us in order dated August 20. No enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the municipal commissioner, Junagadh to even satisfy himself about the manner in which plastic waste is being handled by the two agencies hired by the corporation," the court further noted in its order.

The high court thereafter directed the GPCB to visit both the facilities "within a period of 24 hours" and submit a report on the manner in which two sites are being operated by the agencies hired by the corporation.

"Report of GPCB be placed along with affidavit of regional manager, GPCB on next date fixed," the court said.

At this stage Panchal drew the court's attention to Rules 6, 12, 13 and 17 of the Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016. Rule 6 pertains to the responsibility of local body for development and setting up of infrastructure for segregation, collection, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of the plastic waste either on its own or by engaging agencies or producers.

Rule 12 states that The State Pollution Control Board shall be the authority for enforcement of the provisions of these rules relating to registration, manufacture of plastic products and multi-layered packaging, processing and disposal of plastic wastes.

Rule 13 states that nobody shall manufacture carry bags or recycle plastic bags or multi-layered packaging without obtaining a registration from the State Pollution Control Board prior to the commencement of production. The provision further states that every person recycling or processing waste or proposing to recycle or process plastic waste shall make an application to the State Pollution Control Board for grant of registration or renewal of registration for the recycling unit, in Form II.

Rule 17 states that every person engaged in recycling or processing of plastic waste shall prepare and submit an annual report in Form-IV to the local body concerned under intimation to the concerned State Pollution Control Board by April 30 of every year.

In view of these provisions, the high court asked the Junagadh Municipal Commissioner to place on record the annual report if any submitted by the person engaged by the corporation in recycling the plastic waste of the year ending 30 April 2024.

It further said that the "GPCB is required to submit a response before us on the annual report submitted by the local body-Junagadh Municipal Corporation-in accordance with provisions of Rule 17", along with the onsite survey report.

The high court thereafter listed the matter on September 17.

Background

The petitioner filed the PIL for issuance of various directions to the respondent authorities for implementation of the provisions of Articles 21, 48-A, 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India and provisions of Section 27(Restriction on entry in sanctuary), Section 28 (Grant of permit), Section 29 (Destruction, etc., in a sanctuary prohibited without a permit), Section 30 (Causing fire prohibited) and Section 32 (Ban on use of injurious substances) of The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 for religious campus located on the hills of Girnar- Ambika temple and Dattatrey temple etc.

It was the petitioner's case that these temples are located in the hills which are known as Girnar forest and declared as Wildlife Sanctuary in the year 2008. As per the case of the petitioner, there are 56 lions inside this Girnar Sanctuary which is also home of vultures. The grievance of the petitioner is that thousands of persons are daily visiting these temples. The hills are not properly maintained by the respondent since used plastic wastage have been thrown by the visitors and are not regularly cleaned.

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