Item No. 01 Court No.

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

(By Video Conferencing)

Original Application No. 606/2018

(In respect of State of Maharashtra)

In re: Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules,

2016 and other environmental issues

(Arising out of directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in W.P. No. 888/1996 and W.P. No. 375/2012)

Date of hearing: 08.09.2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

Present: Shri Manu Kumar Shrivastava, Chief Secretary

Smt. Manisha Mhaiskar, Principal Secretary, Environment Dept.
Dr. Sonia Sethi, Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept.
Shri P. Velarasu, Addl. Municipal Commissioner, MCGM
Shri Vikram Kumar, Municipal Commissioner, Pune
Shri Ashok Shingare, Member Secretary, MPCB
Shri Sameer Unahale, Director, Swacch Maharashtra
Shri A.V. Jevalikar, Dy. Secretary, UD
Shri C.A. Vibhute, Dy. Secretary
Shri S.B. Sandanshiv, Under Secretary
Dr. Y.B. Sontakke, JD
Dr. J.B. Sanjewar, RO, HR
Dr. N.N. Gurav, R.O., BMC

ORDER

The Issue – Monitoring of compliance of waste in terms of orders of

Hon’ble Supreme Court

1. The issues of solid as well as liquid waste management are being

monitored by this Tribunal as per orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

order dated 02.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 888/1996, Almitra H. Patel vs.

Union of India & Ors., with regard to solid waste management and order

1
dated 22.02.2017 in W.P. No. 375/2012, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 326,

Paryavaran Suraksha vs. Union of India, with regard to liquid waste

management. Other related issues include pollution of 351 river stretches,

124 non-attainment cities in terms of air quality, 100 polluted industrial

clusters, illegal sand mining etc. which have also been dealt with earlier

but we propose to limit the proceedings in the present matter to two issues

of solid waste and sewage management.

ORDERS OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT TRANSFERRING THE ISSUE OF

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT TO THIS
TRIBUNAL:

Solid Waste Management

2. While transferring the issue of solid waste management vide Order

dated 02.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 888/1996, Almitra H. Patel Vs. Union

of India & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “handling of solid

municipal waste is a perennial challenge and would require constant

efforts and monitoring with a view to making the municipal

authorities concerned accountable, taking note of dereliction, if any,

issuing suitable directions consistent with the said Rules and

direction incidental to the purpose underlying the Rules such as

upgradation of technology wherever possible. All these matters can,

in our opinion, be best left to be handled by the National Green

Tribunal established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The

Tribunal, it is common ground, is not only equipped with the

necessary expertise to examine and deal with the environment related

issues but is also competent to issue in appropriate cases directions

considered necessary for enforcing the statutory provisions.”

3. Before transferring the said proceedings, matter was monitored by

Hon’ble Supreme Court for about eighteen years and orders passed include

2
 (2000) 2 SCC 679 and (2004) 13 SCC 538, directing scientific disposal of

waste by setting up of compost plants/processing plants, preventing water

percolation through heaps of garbage, creating focused ‘solid waste

management cells’ in all States and complying with the Municipal Solid

Waste Management Rules, 2000 (now replaced by SWM Rules, 2016). It

was observed that the local authorities constituted for providing

services to the citizens are lethargic and insufficient in their

functioning which is impermissible. Non-accountability has led to lack

of effort on the part of the employees. Domestic garbage and sewage

along with poor drainage system in an unplanned manner contribute

heavily to the problem of solid waste. The number of slums have multiplied

significantly occupying large areas of public land. Promise of free land

attracts more land grabbers. Instead of “slum clearance” there is “slum

creation” in cities which is further aggravating the problem of

domestic waste being strewn in the open. Accordingly, the Court

directed that provisions pertaining to sanitation and public health be

complied with, streets and public premises be cleaned daily, statutory

authorities levy and recover charges from any person violating laws

and ensure scientific disposal of waste, landfill sites be identified

keeping in mind requirement of the city for next 20 years and

environmental considerations, sites be identified for setting up of compost

plants, steps be taken to prevent fresh encroachments and compliance

report be submitted within eight weeks. Further observations in the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court1are:

“3. The petitioner has handed over a note in the Court showing
the progress that has been made in some of the States and also
setting out some of the suggestions, including the suggestion for
creation of solid waste management cell, so as to put a focus on
the issue and also to provide incentives to those who perform

1 (2004) 13 SCC 538

3
well as was tried in some of the States. The said note states as
under:

“1. As a result of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders on 26-

7-2004, in Maharashtra the number of authorisations
granted for solid waste management (SWM) has
increased from 32% to 98%, in Gujarat from 58% to 92%
and in M.P. from NIL to 34%. No affidavits at all have been
received from the 24 other States/UTs for which CPCB
reported NIL or less than 3% authorisations in February
2004. All these States and their SPCBs can study and
learn from Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat’s
successes.

2. All States/UTs and their SPCBs/PCCs have totally

ignored the improvement of existing open dumps,
due by 31-12-2001, let alone identifying and monitoring
the existing sites. Simple steps can be taken immediately
at almost no cost by every single ULB to prevent monsoon
water percolation through the heaps, which produces
highly polluting black run-off (leachate). Waste heaps can
be made convex to eliminate standing water, upslope
diversion drains can prevent water inflow, downslope
diversion drains can capture leachate for recirculation
onto the heaps, and disused heaps can be given soil cover
for vegetative healing.

3. Lack of funds is no excuse for inaction. Smaller

towns in every State should go and learn from
Suryapet in A.P. (population 103,000) and
Namakkal in T.N. (population 53,000) which have
both seen dustbin-free ‘zero garbage towns’
complying with the MSW Rules since 2003 with no
financial input from the State or the Centre, just
good management and a sense of commitment.

4. States seem to use the Rules as an excuse to milk

funds from the Centre, by making that a
precondition for action and inflating waste
processing costs 2-3 fold. The Supreme Court
Committee recommended 1/3 contribution each from the
city, State and Centre. Before seeking 70-80% Centre’s
contribution, every State should first ensure that each city
first spends its own share to immediately make its wastes
non-polluting by simple sanitising/stabilising, which is
always the first step in composting viz. inoculate the
waste with cow dung solution or bio culture and placing
it in windrows (long heaps) which are turned at least once
or twice over a period of 45 to 60 days.

5. Unless each State creates a focussed ‘solid waste

management cell’ and rewards its cities for good
performance, both of which Maharashtra has done,
compliance with the MSW Rules seems to be an illusion.

4
 6. The admitted position is that the MSW Rules have
not been complied with even after four years. None
of the functionaries have bothered or discharged their
duties to ensure compliance. Even existing dumps have
not been improved. Thus deeper thought and urgent and
immediate action is necessary to ensure compliance in
future.”

4. In this regard, reference may also be made to orders of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Ratlam vs. Vardhichand2 and B.L.

Wadhera v. Union of India and Ors.3 laying down that clean environment

is fundamental right of citizens under Article 21 and it is for the local

bodies as well as the State to ensure that public health is preserved by

taking all possible steps. For doing so, financial inability cannot be

pleaded. We note that even after 26 years of monitoring, 18 years by

Hon’ble Supreme Court and eight years by this Tribunal, ground situation

remains unsatisfactory.

Liquid Waste Management

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paryavaran Suraksha vs. Union of India4

required this Tribunal to monitor directions for proper treatment of sewage

to prevent untreated sewage and other effluents being discharged in water

bodies by directing “We are of the view that mere directions are

inconsequential, unless a rigid implementation mechanism is laid down.

We, therefore, hereby provide that the directions pertaining to continuation

of industrial activity only when there is in place a functional “primary

effluent treatment plants”, and the setting up of functional “common

effluent treatment plants” within the timelines, expressed above, shall be

of the Member Secretaries of the Pollution Control Boards concerned. The

Secretary of the Department of Environment, of the State Government

2 (1980) 4 SCC 162

3 (1996) 2 SCC 594
4 (2017) 5 SCC 326

5
concerned (and the Union Territory concerned), shall be answerable in case

of default. The Secretaries to the Government concerned shall be

responsible for monitoring the progress and issuing necessary

directions to the Pollution Control Board concerned, as may be

required, for the implementation of the above directions. They shall

be also responsible for collecting and maintaining records of data, in

respect of the directions contained in this order. The said data shall

be furnished to the Central Ground Water Authority, which shall

evaluate the data and shall furnish the same to the Bench of the

jurisdictional National Green Tribunal. To supervise complaints of

non-implementation of the instant directions, the Benches concerned

of the National Green Tribunal, will maintain running and numbered

case files, by dividing the jurisdictional area into units. The

abovementioned case files will be listed periodically. The Pollution

Control Board concerned is also hereby directed to initiate such civil

or criminal action, as may be permissible in law, against all or any of

the defaulters.”

6. Extracts from the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti Vs. Union of India are as follows:

“7. Having effectuated the directions recorded in the

foregoing paragraphs, the next step would be, to set up
common effluent treatment plants. We are informed,
that for the aforesaid purpose, the financial
contribution of the Central Government is to the
extent of 50%, that of the State Government
concerned (including the Union Territory concerned)
is 25%. The balance 25%, is to be arranged by way
of loans from banks. The above loans, are to be repaid,
by the industrial areas, and/or industrial clusters. We
are also informed that the setting up of a common effluent
treatment plant, would ordinarily take approximately two
years (in cases where the process has yet to be
commenced). The reason for the above prolonged period,
for setting up “common effluent treatment plants”,

6
 according to the learned counsel, is not only financial, but
also, the requirement of land acquisition, for the same.

x…………………………x…………………x………………..

10. Given the responsibility vested in municipalities under

Article 243-W of the Constitution, as also, in Item 6 of
Schedule XII, wherein the aforesaid obligation, pointedly
extends to “public health, sanitation conservancy and
solid waste management”, we are of the view that the
onus to operate the existing common effluent treatment
plants, rests on municipalities (and/or local bodies).
Given the aforesaid responsibility, the municipalities
(and/or local bodies) concerned, cannot be permitted to
shy away from discharging this onerous duty. In case
there are further financial constraints, the remedy
lies in Articles 243-X and 243-Y of the Constitution.
It will be open to the municipalities (and/or local
bodies) concerned, to evolve norms to recover funds,
for the purpose of generating finances to install
and run all the “common effluent treatment
plants”, within the purview of the provisions
referred to hereinabove. Needless to mention that
such norms as may be evolved for generating
financial resources, may include all or any of the
commercial, industrial and domestic beneficiaries,
of the facility. The process of evolving the above norms,
shall be supervised by the State Government (Union
Territory) concerned, through the Secretaries, Urban
Development and Local Bodies, respectively (depending
on the location of the respective common effluent
treatment plant). The norms for generating funds for
setting up and/or operating the “common effluent
treatment plant” shall be finalised, on or before 31-
3-2017, so as to be implemented with effect from
the next financial year. In case, such norms are not
in place, before the commencement of the next
financial year, the State Governments (or the Union
Territories) concerned, shall cater to the financial
requirements, of running the “common effluent
treatment plants”, which are presently
dysfunctional, from their own financial resources.

11. Just in the manner suggested hereinabove, for the

purpose of setting up of “common effluent treatment
plants”, the State Governments concerned (including, the
Union Territories concerned) will prioritise such cities,
towns and villages, which discharge industrial
pollutants and sewer, directly into rivers and water
bodies.

12. We are of the view that in the manner suggested above,

the malady of sewer treatment, should also be dealt
with simultaneously. We, therefore, hereby direct that
“sewage treatment plants” shall also be set up and made

7
 functional, within the timelines and the format, expressed
hereinabove.”

7. Expression ‘Common Effluent Treatment Plants” in para 7 may

infact refer to the STPs, as the context shows.

8. On this subject, inspite of deadline of 31.3.2018 fixed by Hon’ble

Supreme Court for preventing discharge of pollutants and rigorous

monitoring by this Tribunal for the last five years, ground situation

remains unsatisfactory.

Procedural History of present proceedings before this Tribunal

9. In the light of above, the Tribunal has considered the matter in the

last eight years as far as solid waste management is concerned and more

than five years as far as liquid waste management is concerned. Main

orders on the subject include orders dated 22.12.2016, 31.08.2018,

16.01.2019, 28.8.2019, 12.09.2019, 6.12.2019, 07.01.2020, 28.02.2020,

02.07.2020, 14.12.2020, 22.2.2021, 30.11.2021, 14.12.2020 and

31.05.2022. First two orders - dated 22.12.2016 and 31.08.2018 deal only

with solid waste management. Orders dated 28.8.2019, 6.12.2019 and

22.2.2021 deal with only liquid waste management while the remaining

orders deal with solid waste as well as liquid waste management. Issue of

liquid waste has also been separately dealt with in OA No. 593/2017 which

was finally disposed of on 22.02.2021 with direction that further

monitoring be undertaken by Central Monitoring Committee constituted

by the said order. It was held that monitoring by the Tribunal cannot be

for indefinite time and State authorities are primarily responsible for such

monitoring after adequate monitoring by the Tribunal. By the same order,

the Tribunal also dealt with the issue of 351 identified polluted river

stretches in OA 673/2018. This is apart from individual cases dealing with

8
solid and liquid waste management. A brief reference of these orders will

be made hereafter.

Orders dated 22.12.2016 and 31.08.2018

10. Vide order dated 22.12.2016, (2016) SCC Online NGT 2981, the

issue of Solid Waste Management was disposed of requiring strict

compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 by all the States/UTs

making it clear that if violations continue, the State will be liable to pay

compensation. Later, matter was taken up to ascertain compliance status

and finding that all the States/UTs were still non-compliant in the matter,

the matter was again taken up and fresh directions issued for monitoring

by the Tribunal constituted Monitoring Committees vide order dated

31.08.2018. Later, continuance of the committees was left to discretion of

the States, depending on their own monitoring mechanism.

Order dated 16.01.2019 requiring personal presence of Chief

Secretaries of all States and UTs to explore remedial action after
interaction with them and further orders

11. In view of continuing non-compliances, vide order dated 16.01.2019,

the Tribunal directed personal presence of Chief Secretaries of all States

and UTs for interaction to ensure compliance. The Tribunal held that large

scale non-compliance of environmental norms was resulting in deaths and

diseases and irreversible damage to the environment, without

accountability for such failures. Though violation of the Rules as well as

orders of this Tribunal is criminal offence, still there was rampant violation

by State authorities practically with no accountability which unhappy

situation was required to be remedied by involvement of highest

functionaries of the State in the interest of public health and to uphold

rule of law.

9
12. In terms of order dated 16.1.2019, the Chief Secretaries of all the

States/UTs appeared on different dates till 18.07.2019 and the Tribunal,

after reviewing the status of noncompliance on most of the issues, directed

further effective steps to be taken for compliance of the Rules and the

environmental norms. The Chief Secretary of Maharashtra appeared on

08.04.2019 and following directions were issued:

“37. In view of above, after discussion with the Chief Secretary,

following further directions are issued:

i. Steps for compliance of Rules 22 and 24 of SWM Rules be

now taken within six weeks to the extent not yet taken.
Similar steps be taken with regard to Bio-Medical Waste
Management Rules and Plastic Waste Management Rules.

ii. Atleast three major cities and threemajor towns in the State
and atleast three Panchayats in every District may be
notified on the website within two weeks from today as
model cities/towns/villages which will be made fully
compliant within next six months.

iii. The remaining cities, towns and Village Panchayats of the

State may be made fully compliant in respect of
environmental norms within one year.

iv. A quarterly report be furnished by the Chief Secretary, every

three months. First such report shall be furnished by July
10, 2019.

v. The Chief Secretary may personally monitor the progress,

atleast once in a month, with all the District Magistrates.

vi. The District Magistrates or other Officers may be imparted

requisite training.

vii. The District Magistrates may monitor the status of

compliance of environmental norms, atleast once in two
weeks.

viii. Performance audit of functioning of all regulatory bodies

may be got conducted and remedial measures be taken,
within six months.”

13. The Chief Secretary of Maharashtra appeared again on 24.01.2020

and the Tribunal inter-alia issued following directions:

10
 “37. In view of above, consistent with the directions referred to in
Para 29 issued on 10.01.2020 in the case of UP, Punjab and
Chandigarh which have also been repeated for other States in
matters already dealt with, we direct:

a. In view of the fact that most of the statutory timelines have

expired and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this
Tribunal to comply with Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016
remain unexecuted, compensation scale is hereby laid down
for continued failure after 31.03.2020. The compliance of the
Rules requires taking of several steps mentioned in Rule 22
from Serial No. 1 to 10 (mentioned in para 12 above). Any such
continued failure will result in liability of every Local Body to
pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per month per
Local Body for population of above 10 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakh per
month per Local Body for population between 5 lakhs and 10
lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh per month per other Local Body from
01.04.2020 till compliance. If the Local Bodies are unable to
bear financial burden, the liability will be of the State
Governments with liberty to take remedial action against the
erring Local Bodies. Apart from compensation, adverse entries
must be made in the ACRs of the CEO of the said Local Bodies
and other senior functionaries in Department of Urban
Development etc. who are responsible for compliance of order
of this Tribunal.

b. Legacy waste remediation was to ‘commence’ from 01.11.2019

in terms of order of this Tribunal dated 17.07.2019 in O.A. No.
519/2019 para 285 even though statutory timeline for
‘completing’ the said step is till 07.04.2021 (as per serial no.
11 in Rule 22), which direction remains unexecuted at most of
the places. Continued failure of every Local Body on the subject
of commencing the work of legacy waste sites remediation from
01.04.2020 till compliance will result in liability to pay
compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per month per Local
Body for population of above 10 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakh per month
per Local Body for population between 5 lakhs and 10 lakhs
and Rs. 1 lakh per month per other Local Body. If the Local
Bodies are unable to bear financial burden, the liability will be
of the State Governments with liberty to take remedial action
against the erring Local Bodies. Apart from compensation,
adverse entries must be made in the ACRs of the CEO of the
said Local Bodies and other senior functionaries in Department
of Urban Development etc. who are responsible for compliance
of order of this Tribunal.

5
The Chief Secretaries may ensure allocation of funds for processing of legacy waste and its
disposal and in their respective next reports, give the progress relating to management of all
the legacy waste dumpsites. Remediation work on all other dumpsites may commence from
01.11.2019 and completed preferably within six months and in no case beyond one year.
Substantial progress be made within six months. We are conscious that the SWM Rules
provide for a maximum period of upto five years for the purpose, however there is no reason
why the same should not happen earlier, in view of serious implications on the environment
and public health.

11
c. Further, with regard to thematic areas listed above in para 20,
steps be ensured by the Chief Secretaries in terms of directions
of this Tribunal especially w.r.t. plastic waste, bio-medical
waste, construction and demolition waste which are linked
with solid waste treatment and disposal. Action may also be
ensured by the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs with
respect to remaining thematic areas viz. hazardous waste, e-
waste, polluted industrial clusters, reuse of treated water,
performance of CETPs/ETPs, groundwater extraction,
groundwater recharge, restoration of water bodies, noise
pollution and illegal sand mining.

d. The compensation regime already laid down for failure of the

Local Bodies and/or Department of Irrigation and Public
Health/In-charge Department to take action for treatment of
sewage in terms of observations in para 33 above will result in
liability to pay compensation as already noted above which is
reproduced for ready reference:

i. Interim measures for phytoremediation/

bioremediation etc in respect of 100% sewage to reduce
the pollution load on recipient water bodies –
31.03.2020. Compensation is payable for failure to do
so at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per drain by
concerned Local Bodies/States (in terms of orders
dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 and
06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018) w.e.f. 01.04.2020.

ii. Commencement of setting up of STPs – 31.03.2020.

Compensation is payable for failure to do so at the rate
of Rs. 5 lakh per month per STP by concerned Local
Bodies/States (in terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in
O.A. No. 593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No.
673/2018) w.e.f. 01.04.2020.

iii. Commissioning of STPs – 31.03.2021. Compensation is

payable for failure to do so at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh
per month per STP by concerned Local Bodies/States
(in terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No.
593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018)
w.e.f. 01.04.2021.

e. Compensation in above terms may be deposited with the CPCB

for being spent on restoration of environment which may be
ensured by the Chief Secretaries’ of the States/UTs.

f. An ‘Environment Monitoring Cell’ may be set up in the office of

Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs within one month from
today, if not already done for coordination and compliance of
above directions which will be the responsibility of the Chief
Secretaries of the States/UTs.

g. Compliance reports in respect of significant environmental

issues may be furnished in terms of order dated 07.01.2020
quarterly with a copy to CPCB.”

12
14. In short, the Tribunal expected three model cities, towns and

villages to be made compliant in six months and the remaining State

with one year. It was this target for the State by setting up of

environmental cells directly under the Chief Secretaries, regular

periodical monitoring by the Chief Secretaries at the State level and

by the District Magistrates at the District level. Further direction also

was to take action for non-compliance by recovery of compensation and

recording adverse ACRs against erring officers. The Tribunal also directed

filing of quarterly reports by the Chief Secretaries. Based on such reports,

CPCB was to file consolidated status reports. The Chief Secretaries were to

appear again after six months with updated status of compliance. It is

difficult to hold that the State has taken directions of the Tribunal

seriously or even endeavoured to go by this mandate. Even after three

years, neither there is adequate compliance nor the same has been

projected in immediate future. No accountability fixed, no

performance audit shown to have been conducted and no entries in

ACRs are shown to have been made. There is nothing to show that

compensation has been recovered in terms of directions of the

Tribunal. The State assumes that none is responsible for such gross

violations of law and directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this

Tribunal. It is difficult to say how rule of law will be achieved. We

thus record our disappointment with the attitude of the State and

hope the State makes amends in compliance now.

15. The Tribunal has been receiving progress reports from States as well

as monitoring Committees wherever functioning which have been

considered by further orders.

13
Further Review after completing round of interaction with all Chief
Secretaries by order dated 12.9.2019

16. The matter was then reviewed on 12.09.2019 in the light of report of

the CPCB dated 09.09.2019 showing wide gaps in compliance of solid

waste, plastic waste, bio-medical waste management, rejuvenation of

identified polluted river stretches, polluted industrial clusters and

non-attainment cities. A fresh schedule for appearance of the Chief

Secretaries was issued. Vide order dated 07.01.2020, the Tribunal directed

CPCB to ascertain Compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 in

terms of MSW generated, segregated and treated, gaps in the waste

processing, enforcement of statutory timelines and orders of this Tribunal,

number of sites remediated, and quantity of legacy waste therein and

timelines for completing remediation. It was further directed that on the

subject of sewage treatment, CPCB has to ascertain quantity of sewage

generated and treated in the State, gap in the sewage treatment and

timelines to bridge the gap, including strategy for use of treated water for

secondary purpose. CPCB was accordingly directed to redesign its formats

for securing relevant quantifiable information.

Order dated 28.02.2020

17. Accordingly, the Chief Secretaries of 18 States/UTs appeared and

filed updated status reports. Since there still existed huge gaps in

compliance, further directions were issued by way of different orders. Last

such order is of 28.2.2020. Other orders are on same pattern. The direction

part of the said order is reproduced below:

“41. In view of above, consistent with the directions referred

to in Para 29 issued on 10.01.2020 in the case of UP, Punjab
and Chandigarh which have also been repeated for other States
in matters already dealt with, we direct:

h. In view of the fact that most of the statutory timelines

have expired and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

14
 and this Tribunal to comply with Solid Waste
Management Rules, 2016 remain unexecuted, interim
compensation scale is hereby laid down for
continued failure after 31.03.2020. The compliance
of the Rules requires taking of several steps
mentioned in Rule 22 from Serial No. 1 to 10
(mentioned in para 12 above). Any such continued
failure will result in liability of every Local Body to
pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per
month per Local Body for population of above 10
lakhs, Rs. 5 lakh per month per Local Body for
population between 5 lakhs and 10 lakhs and Rs. 1
lakh per month per other Local Body from
01.04.2020 till compliance. If the Local Bodies are
unable to bear financial burden, the liability will be
of the State Governments with liberty to take
remedial action against the erring Local Bodies.
Apart from compensation, adverse entries must be
made in the ACRs of the CEO of the said Local
Bodies and other senior functionaries in
Department of Urban Development etc. who are
responsible for compliance of order of this
Tribunal. Final compensation may be assessed and
recovered by the State PCBs/PCCs in the light of
Para 33 above within six months from today. CPCB
may prepare a template and issue an appropriate
direction to the State PCBs/PCCs for undertaking
such an assessment in the light thereof within one
month.

i. Legacy waste remediation was to ‘commence’ from

01.11.2019 in terms of order of this Tribunal dated
17.07.2019 in O.A. No. 519/2019 para 286 even
though statutory timeline for ‘completing’ the said
step is till 07.04.2021 (as per serial no. 11 in Rule
22), which direction remains unexecuted at most of
the places and delay in clearing legacy waste is
causing huge damage to environment in monetary
terms as noted in para 33 above, pending
assessment and recovery of such damage by the
concerned State PCB within four months from
today, continued failure of every Local Body on the
subject of commencing the work of legacy waste
sites remediation from 01.04.2020 till compliance
will result in liability to pay compensation at the
rate of Rs. 10 lakh per month per Local Body for
population of above 10 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakh per month

6
The Chief Secretaries may ensure allocation of funds for processing of legacy waste and its
disposal and in their respective next reports, give the progress relating to management of all
the legacy waste dumpsites. Remediation work on all other dumpsites may commence from
01.11.2019 and completed preferably within six months and in no case beyond one year.
Substantial progress be made within six months. We are conscious that the SWM Rules
provide for a maximum period of upto five years for the purpose, however there is no reason
why the same should not happen earlier, in view of serious implications on the environment
and public health.

15
 per Local Body for population between 5 lakhs and
10 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh per month per other Local
Body. If the Local Bodies are unable to bear
financial burden, the liability will be of the State
Governments with liberty to take remedial action
against the erring Local Bodies. Apart from
compensation, adverse entries must be made in the
ACRs of the CEO of the said Local Bodies and other
senior functionaries in Department of Urban
Development etc. who are responsible for
compliance of order of this Tribunal. Final
compensation may be assessed and recovered by the
State PCBs/PCCs in the light of Para 33 above
within six months from today.

j. Further, with regard to thematic areas listed above in

para 20, steps be ensured by the Chief Secretaries in
terms of directions of this Tribunal especially w.r.t. plastic
waste, bio-medical waste, construction and demolition
waste which are linked with solid waste treatment and
disposal. Action may also be ensured by the Chief
Secretaries of the States/UTs with respect to remaining
thematic areas viz. hazardous waste, e-waste, polluted
industrial clusters, reuse of treated water, performance of
CETPs/ETPs, groundwater extraction, groundwater
recharge, restoration of water bodies, noise pollution and
illegal sand mining.

k. The compensation regime already laid down for failure of

the Local Bodies and/or Department of Irrigation and
Public Health/In-charge Department to take action for
treatment of sewage in terms of observations in Para 36
above will result in liability to pay compensation as
already noted above which are reproduced for ready
reference:

iv. Interim measures for phytoremediation/

bioremediation etc. in respect of 100%
sewage to reduce the pollution load on
recipient water bodies – 31.03.2020.
Compensation is payable for failure to do
so at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per
drain by concerned Local Bodies/States (in
terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in O.A.
No. 593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No.
673/2018) w.e.f. 01.04.2020.

v. Commencement of setting up of STPs –

31.03.2020. Compensation is payable for
failure to do so at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per
month per STP by concerned Local
Bodies/States (in terms of orders dated
28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 593/2017 and
06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/2018) w.e.f.
01.04.2020.

16
 vi. Commissioning of STPs – 31.03.2021.
Compensation is payable for failure to do
so at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per month per
STP by concerned Local Bodies/States (in
terms of orders dated 28.08.2019 in O.A.
No. 593/2017 and 06.12.2019 in O.A. No.
673/2018) w.e.f. 01.04.2021.

l. Compensation in above terms may be deposited with the

CPCB for being spent on restoration of environment which
may be ensured by the Chief Secretaries’ of the
States/UTs.

m. An ‘Environment Monitoring Cell’ may be set up in the

office of Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs within one
month from today, if not already done for coordination
and compliance of above directions which will be the
responsibility of the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs.

n. Compliance reports in respect of significant

environmental issues may be furnished in terms of order
dated 07.01.2020 quarterly with a copy to CPCB.

18. Timelines under the Rules referred to in sub para (a) above are :

“22. Time frame for implementation:- Necessary infrastructure for

implementation of these rules shall be created by the local bodies and
other concerned authorities, as the case may be, on their own, by
directly or engaging agencies within the time frame specified below:

Sl. Activity Time limit

No. from the date
of notification
of rules
(1) (2) (3)
1. Identification of suitable sites for setting up 1 year
solid waste processing facilities.
2. Identification of suitable sites for setting up 1 year
common regional sanitary landfill facilities for
suitable clusters of local authorities under 0.5
million population and for setting up common
regional sanitary landfill facilities or stand alone
sanitary landfill facilities by all local authorities
having a population of 0.5 million or more.
3. Procurement of suitable sites for setting up 2 years
solid waste processing facility and sanitary
landfill facilities.
4. Enforcing waste generators to practice segregation 2 years
of bio degradable, recyclable, combustible,
sanitary waste domestic hazardous and inert solid
wastes at source.
5. Ensure door to door collection of segregated waste 2 years
and its transportation in covered vehicles to
processing or disposal facilities.

17
 6. ensure separate storage, collection and 2 years
transportation of construction and demolition
wastes.
7. setting up solid waste processing facilities by all 2 years
Local Bodies having 100000 or more population.
8. Setting up solid waste processing facilities by Local 3 years
Bodies and census towns below 100000
population.
9. setting up common or stand alone sanitary 3 years
landfills by or for all Local Bodies having 0.5 million
or more population for the disposal of only such
residual wastes from the processing facilities as
well as untreatable inert wastes as permitted
under the Rules.
10. setting up common or regional sanitary 3 years
landfills by 3 years all Local Bodies and census
towns under 0.5 million population for the disposal
of permitted waste under the rules.
11. bio-remediation or capping of old and 5 years ”
abandoned dump sites.

19. Our comments with regard to compliance of directions dated

28.2.2020 remain the same as in para 13 above.

Order dated 02.07.2020

20. The matter was then considered on 02.07.2020. Having regard to the

pandemic, appearance of remaining Chief Secretaries was deferred.

Order dated 14.12.2020

21. The matter was further considered on 14.12.2020 for review of

progress. Scheduled appearance of remaining Chief Secretaries was

dispensed with but it was directed that monitoring at the level of Chief

Secretaries may continue and quarterly status reports be filed with CPCB

so that CPCB may file a consolidated report every six months before the

Tribunal. It was further directed that compensation in terms of earlier

orders be recovered and credited to a separate account with the

Environment Department of concerned State to be used for restoration of

environment. It was also observed that in these proceedings Solid Waste

18
Management also will be monitored, other issues being considered in

separate proceedings.

22. As already noted above, there is nothing to show compliance by

the State of Maharashtra on the issue of deposit of compensation and

its utilization as directed.

Further review on 30.11.2021 – huge gaps still found and hence,

another round of interaction with Chief Secretaries proposed

23. The matter was thereafter taken up on 30.11.2021 to consider the

report of CPCB dated 25.10.2020 giving compliance status in 32

States/UTs as in March, 2021 as follows:-

“Solid Waste Management

4.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

a. Total No. of ULBs in 29 States/UTs is 4186.

b. As per information provided by 29 States/UTs - total

waste generated is 150858.951 TPD of which
94435.318 TPD is processed, which is 62.6% of the total
waste generated in these States/UT. 11772.4538 TPD
(7.8%) of the waste is landfilled and the gap in Solid
waste management in 29 States is 45071.771 TPD
which is 29.8% of the waste generated in these
States/UTs.

c. Information on MRF has been provided for 28 States/UTs

covering 77% of ULBs in these States/UTs.

d. Information on Recycling facilities have been provided for 22

States/UTs covering 39% of ULBs in these States/UTs

e. Information on Composting facilities has been provided for all

29 States/UTs covering 70% of ULBs in these States/UTs

f. Information on WtE has been provided for 25 out of 29

States/UTs covering 1.9% of ULBs in these States/UTs.

g. Information on RDF has been provided for 24 out of 29

States/UTs covering 12.4% of ULBs in these States/UTs.

h. Information on Biomethanation has been provided for 27 out

of 29 States/UTs covering 7.1% of ULBs in these States/UTs.

i. Information on Landfills has been provided in 24 out of

29 States/UTs covering 18.9% of ULBs in the States.

19
 j. 498 of 2111 (23%) dumpsites in 25 States/UTs have been
cleared and Remediation has been initiated in 23% (496) of the
dumpsites.

k. Model Town/Cities have been identified in 25 States/UTs.

l. 16 States /UTs have established environmental cells.

m. 15 States /UTs have standardised rates for procurement

of services/equipment required for solid waste
management.

n. In view of above, States/UTs need to develop of ULB wise

action plan for collection, segregation, transportation and
processing of waste and lay down an appropriate governance
framework at state and district levels.”

24. The Tribunal in its order dated 30.11.2021 observed:-

“1to17….xxxx…………………..xxx……………………………….…xxx

18. We are of the view that hence forthwith proceedings in

this matter need to cover Solid Waste Management and Sewage
Management, these issues being crucial and required to be
monitored by this Tribunal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Absence of management of waste results in adding to air and
water pollution in a big way. All the legacy waste dump sites
in the country need to be remediated to reduce methane gas,
foul smell and leachate and also to release valuable land
occupied by such sites which can be used for waste
management/plantation or raising funds. Waste collected must
be scientifically processed and disposed at the earliest in the
interest of hygiene and public health. It needs to be ensured
that instead of remediating the legacy waste sites, the garbage
is not shifted to new sites which is not a solution to the
problem. It only results in shifting the problem from one place
to the other without any advancement of environment
protection. What is necessary is that the garbage must be
finally disposed of and land reclaimed. The authorities must
move towards zero garbage at the end of the day by ensuring
that instead of garbage being collected and dumped, it is taken
to destination where it is finally processed scientifically and
appropriately, except for reused/recycling of such residues as
is possible. This is also the mandate of Swachh Bharat Mission,
initiated by the Central Government. Similarly, sewage has to
be scientifically treated to give effect to the mandate of Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 in the interest
of availability of clean water in rivers and other waterbodies.
Central Governments programmes also provide for initiatives
on these subjects. On both aspects, compensation regime has
been laid down which is necessary to enforce the rule of law
and for protection of environment and public health. The
compensation laid down has to be duly collected and utilized
for restoration of environment, by being kept in a separate
account. Accountability for the failures needs to be fixed by

20
 way of ACRs and departmental action as such failures result
in crimes under the law of land and damage to public health.
Such failure is also breach of Constitutional obligation to
uphold the Right to Life. The country is committed to
Sustainable Development Goals of providing clean air and safe
drinking water.

19. In view of above, continued failure of Rule of Law must be

remedied in terms of mandate of orders of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Writ Petition No. 888/1996, Almitra H. Patel Vs. Union
of India & Ors. and Paryavaran Suraksha vs. Union of India,7
followed by orders of this Tribunal. It is necessary that Chief
Secretaries continue the monitoring and interact with this
Tribunal periodically by video conferencing. Accordingly, we
lay down following further schedule for personal appearance
of the Chief Secretaries, by Video Conferencing, with the status
of compliance in respect of each of the States/UTs on the
subject of Solid Waste Management and Sewage Management.
The data to be furnished should cover all categories of areas
in the State – big cities, towns and villages.

20. The hearing on each of above dates will commence at

10:30 a.m. sharp. The Chief Secretaries may not delegate the
responsibility. As far as possible, they may adjust other work
for which long advance notice is being given. In case
adjustment is found difficult for any unforeseen reason,
request for change of date may be mailed by e-mail at judicial-
ngt@gov.in.

21. All the States/CPCB may undertake process of verification of

data after having interaction on video conferencing with the concerned
States/UTs within one month. The Secretaries, Environment, Urban
Development Department and Irrigation Department may also
coordinate with the Member Secretaries of State Legal Services
Authorities in all State/UTs in the light of background mentioned in
paras 3 and 4 above for the awareness programmes on the subject.”

Separate orders dated 28.8.2019, 12.9.2019, 6.12.2019 and

22.02.2021 on the subject of Liquid Waste Management

25. Issue of liquid waste management was separately dealt with in OA

593/2017 on directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and in suo motu

proceedings for restoration of 351 identified polluted river stretches in OA

673/2018. Vide order dated 28.08.2019, the Tribunal directed that 100%

sewage treatment must be ensured by all local bodies. Vide further order

7
(2017) 5 SCC 326

21
 dated 06.12.2019 in O.A. No. 673/20188, the Tribunal directed that for

failure to commence in-situ remediation, compensation will be payable at

the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per drain after 31.03.2020 and for failure

to commence setting up of STPs after 31.03.2020 compensation is to be

paid at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month per STP. For failure to complete

the project, compensation has to be paid at the rate of Rs. 10 lakh per STP

per month after 31.03.2021. Relevant part of the order is quoted below:

“47. (i) 100% treatment of sewage may be ensured as

directed by this Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.2019 in
O.A. No. 593/2017 by 31.03.2020 atleast to the extent of in-
situ remediation and before the said date, commencement
of setting up of STPs and the work of connecting all the
drains and other sources of generation of sewage to the
STPs must be ensured. If this is not done, the local bodies and
the concerned departments of the States/UTs will be liable to pay
compensation as already directed vide order dated 22.08.2019 in
the case of river Ganga i.e. Rs. 5 lakhs per month per drain,
for default in in-situ remediation and Rs. 5 lakhs per STP
for default in commencement of setting up of the STP.

ii. Timeline for completing all steps of action plans including

completion of setting up STPs and their commissioning till
31.03.2021 in terms of order dated 08.04.2019 in the present
case will remain as already directed. In default, compensation
will be liable to be paid at the scale laid down in the order of this
Tribunal dated 22.08.2019 in the case of river Ganga i.e. Rs. 10
lakhs per month per STP.”

26. Both the matters were disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2021 with

a direction that further monitoring be continued at the level of the Chief

Secretaries in States and Central Monitoring Committee headed by

Secretary, Ministry of Jal Shakti at the national level.

Today’s hearing in the presence of Chief Secretary, Maharashtra to

ascertain compliance status and way forward

8News item published in "The Hindu" authored by Shri Jacob Koshy Titled "More river stretches
are now critically polluted: CPCB"

22
 Compliance status in Maharashtra presented

27. The presentation filed by the Chief Secretary, Maharashtra on

07.09.2022 shows following data:

SUMMARY OF STATUS

A: Solid Waste Management

Quantity of Waste Gap in Quantity of Quantity of Status of Bio-

waste Processed generation waste being Legacy waste mining
generation in (in TPD) and disposed in in the State
the State Processing landfills (Tones)
(in TPD) (in TPD) (in TPD)

24,951 20,294 1776 2881 3,94,19,287 189 out of

273 dump
(403 ULBs) sites cleared

B): Sewage Management

Quantity of Utilized Current Gap Utilization of treated sewage in

sewage capacity in treatment
generation in (in MLD) (in MLD) Agriculture/ Industrial Any other
the State Horticulture purpose purpose
(in MLD) purpose

9758.53 4338.2 5420.33 320 MLD

Our Observations findings and Directions

28. It is disappointing to see from the data presented by the Chief

Secretary that after 24.1.2020 when the Chief Secretary, Maharashtra last

appeared before the Tribunal in the present matter, there is no meaningful

progress. There are huge gaps in management of solid as well as liquid

waste.

29. The above data shows that legacy waste is to the extent of

3,94,19,287. Data of rural areas has not been given. It is stated that 189 sites out

of 273 dump sites have been cleared but it is not clear how much quantity of

waste is remediated. Area of land recovered through this process has not been

23
mentioned. Further, more waste is being added on daily basis. Legacy waste

remains source of air, water and land pollution resulting in damage to

environment and public health, as noted in para 24 earlier. Since statutory

timelines for remediation of legacy waste having expired, further steps have

now to be taken in a mission mode and for past violations liability of the

State has to be quantified on ‘Polluter Pays’ principle by way of monetary

compensation to be utilised for restoration of damage to the environment.

30. On the issue of liquid waste/sewage, gap is to the extent of 5420.33

MLD. The said data does not cover the compliance status in rural areas.

Figure of utilisaton of treated sewage shows that much work remains to be

done. Unless treated sewage is usefully deployed for non potable purpose,

potable water may be used for such purposes and sewage may mix with

potable water or go to storm water drains or rivers which has to be avoided.

Timeline for the establishing requisite treatment systems in terms of

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paryavaran Suraksha vs. Union of

India, supra has long expired. This Tribunal had also directed that for delay

after 01.04.2020, coercive measures are to be taken. Till the gaps are

bridged, untreated liquid waste will continue to remain source of

degradation of environment and damage to public health, including deaths

and diseases which the society can ill afford. Hence, the urgency of the

situation for good governance for ensuring emergent measures in public

interest to protect the environment, natural resources and public health

as per mandate of the Constitution. We have to levy compensation for

continuing violation on polluter pays principle to be utilised for restoration

measures.

31. As already noted and observed in the judgement of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Paryavaran Surakhsha, supra, quoted earlier, the

24
matter falls in 12th Schedule to the Constitution and it is constitutional

responsibility of the State and the Local Bodies to provide pollution free

environment and to arrange funds. Being part of right to life, which is also

basic human right and absolute liability of the State, lack of funds cannot

be plea to deny such right. While there may be no objection to any central

funds being availed, the State cannot avoid its responsibility or delay its

discharge on that pretext.

32. It is a matter of concern that even after 48 years of enactment of

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and expiry of

timelines for taking necessary steps for solid waste management in terms

of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and binding direction in the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal in Almitra H.

Patel vs. Union of India & Ors. and Paryavaran Suraksha vs. Union of India,

supra, huge gaps still exist. Are there insurmountable difficulties for State

authorities or lack of will and determination? We find it difficult to believe

the first. In our view, it is lack of good governance and determination

responsible for the situation which needs to be remedied soonest.

33. We have suggested change in approach in realizing that remedial

action cannot wait for indefinite period as is being proposed by the

Administration. Sources of funding are laid down in the orders of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court. Responsibility of the State is to have

comprehensive plan to control pollution which is its absolute liability,

which is not being understood. If there is deficit in budgetary allocations,

it is for the State and state alone to have suitable planning by reducing

cost or augmenting resources. By way of suggestion, one may consider

harnessing traditional knowledge and community involvement. People

must be involved in the problem by appropriate awareness and strategies

25
to encourage public participation and contribution. At the cost of

repetition, health issues cannot be deferred to long future. Long future

dates which, breach of which is established from the track record of last

several decades, is not convincing solution. There is no accountability for

the past breaches. It is poor substitute for compliance. This approach may

project lack of concern or not realizing the grim ground situation crying for

emergent remedial measures on priority. There is no time for leisure,

reflected in timelines proposed for bridging the acknowledged gaps.

34. It is the mindset and determination to act in a mission mode which

can produce results.

35. Segregation of the solid waste at source and its earliest processing

nearest to the point of generation with defined destination is imperative. In

particular, adequate compositing/vermicomposting/bio-methanation

centers need to be set up and upgraded nearest to the source of generation

of wet solid waste, listing people’s involvement. Waste generators can

themselves be required to process the waste under guidance and

handholding by the Administration, with the assistance of identified

empaneled service providers. This may perhaps reduce planned

expenditure.

36. Similarly, sewage can be required to be processed by conventional

cost-effective methods at least at several identified locations with least

expenses. Decentralized treatment plants can be explored, apart from

imposing condition of ZLD on industries, Group Housing Societies etc.

Reduced load can be processed partly with the help of water using

commercial establishments requiring water for their processes enforcing

consent conditions in CTEs and CTOs whereby State’s financial burden

can be reduced. In this context, the draft Notification of MoEF&CC dated

26
 25.02.20229 etc. and the relevant part of the draft Notification in context

of sewage and solid waste management is reproduced below:

“xxx ……………………………xxx………………………………..xxx
C. Management of sewage/waste water, Reuse and recycle of
treated wastewater by dual plumbing system

10. Dual Plumbing System shall be implemented - one for

supplying fresh water for drinking, cooking and bathing etc. and
another for supply of treated water for flushing.

11. Only treated water shall be used for flushing.

12. In no case, sewage or untreated waste water generated

within the project area shall be discharged through storm water
drains or otherwise into water bodies nor discharged/injected
into the ground water by any mode.

13. Subject to Clause (3) of this notification, the project authority

may opt or avail to common off-site treatment facility, as
feasible, for treatment with reuse & recycle of corresponding
quantity of treated water through the dual plumbing system for
flushing and other non-potable use.

A. For projects with built up area of 5,000 sq.mtrs. to

20,000 sq.mtrs. –

i. In areas where there is no municipal sewage network,

a. Either Onsite Sewage Treatment Systems with

capacity to treat 100% waste water may be
installed with appropriate tertiary treatment
system with disinfection for black & grey water.
Such treated water should be used with dual
plumbing system for flushing and other non-potable
use;

OR

b. In case of usage of septic tank, only black water

shall be discharged in the septic tank. Grey water
may be treated through natural treatment systems
or other secondary treatment as feasible. Such
treated water should be used with dual plumbing
system for flushing and other non-potable use;

9
https://www.compfie.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/01032022_EHS_02.pdf

27
 The excess treated water should conform to the
general discharge norms of CPCB/MoEF&CC.

ii. In areas where there is municipal sewage network

a. Either Onsite Sewage Treatment Systems with

capacity to treat 100% waste water may be
installed with appropriate tertiary treatment
system with disinfection for black & grey water.
Such treated water should be used with dual
plumbing system for flushing and other non-potable
use;

OR

b. The project authority may opt to discharge only

black water in such municipal sewage network
subject to availability of trunk sewer line. For this
purpose, two separate pipeline network– one for
black water discharge and other for collection of
grey water shall be installed. Grey water may be
treated through natural treatment systems or other
secondary treatment as feasible. Such treated
water should be used with dual plumbing system
for flushing and other non-potable use;

B. For projects involving built-up area of 20,000 sq. mts.

or more –

14. Subject to Clause (3) of this notification, Onsite Sewage

Treatment Plant with capacity to treat 100% waste water
generated within the project area through tertiary treatment
shall be installed. Treated waste water shall be reused on site
for landscape, flushing, HVAC, fire-fighting, and other end-uses.

15. The adequacy of the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) shall be

certified by an independent expert and a report in this regard
shall be submitted to the authorized agency.

16. Discharge of excess treated wastewater outside the

premises, after treatment in STP, should meet the discharge
standards as notified by CPCB/MoEF&CC from time to time.

17. Wastewater and treated water quantification system

through metering/sub-metering shall be installed.

18. Sludge from the onsite sewage treatment shall be collected,

conveyed and disposed as per the Central Public Health and
Environmental Engineering Organization (CPHEEO) Manual,

28
 Ministry of Housing and Urban Affair, on Sewerage and Sewage
Treatment Systems.

19. Where Common Sewage Treatment Plan facility has been

availed, it shall be ensured that treated waste water is recycled
back to respective building for reuse.

D. Solid Waste Management

20. Subject to Clause (3) of this notification, onsite solid waste

management facility should be developed and a formal
contractual arrangement shall be ensured with authorized
recyclers/concerned municipal agency for disposal of all non-
biodegradable waste.

21. Subject to Clause (3) of this notification, where there is no

alternate arrangement for disposal of biodegradable waste,
Organic waste composter/Vermiculture pit with a minimum
capacity of 1.0 kg/150 sqm. of built-up area/day shall be
installed & operated.”

37. Treated water can also be used by establishments like malls,

industrial estates, automobile establishments, power plants, playgrounds,

railways, bus stands, local bodies, universities etc. to save potable water

for drinking. The treated sewage can be utilized for

industrial/agricultural/other non-drinking uses like washing railway

wagons/yards, buses, roads, water sprinkling. Several such models

reportedly exist10.

10
https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/2019/jul/31/chennai-industries-to-
now-use-treated-sewage-water-2011837.html
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/surat/surat-water-reuse-model-goes-
global/articleshow/85668103.cms
https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/surat-generating-massive-revenue-by-
selling-treated-water-to-industries20201217051127/
https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/surat-generating-massive-revenue-by-selling-treated-water-of-
river-tapi-to-industries-54411/
https://m.timesofindia.com/city/ahmedabad/amc-offers-rs43/kl-treated-wastewater-for-
industries/amp_articleshow/87169850.cms https://theprint.in/india/governance/nagpur-to-
become-the-first-indian-city-to-treat-and-reuse-90-of-its-sewage/180493/

https://www.business-standard.com/content/press-releases-ani/india-s-1st-and-largest-ppp-
on-waste-water-reuse-completed-in-record-time- during-pandemic-bags-ficci-water-award-
2020-121022500841_1.html
https://mpcb.gov.in/sites/default/files/focus-area-reports-
documents/NMC_%26_KTPS_success_story_28052019.pdf
https://cpcb.nic.in/success-stories/upload/1501156301.pdf

29
 38. Thus, it may be necessary to brain storm with available experts and

other stake holders in the State at different levels, evolve models which can

be fast replicated, initiate special campaigns with community/media

involvement in the larger interest of protecting environment and public

health with determination for prompt action. Such brain storming sessions

may enable capacity enhancement of the regulators and the processes.

Campaigns and community involvement may result in reducing the

financial and administrative load on the administration.

39. Compliance of environmental norms on the subject of waste

management has to be on high on priority. Tribunal has come across cases

of serious neglect and continuing damage to the environment in absence

of inadequate steps for treatment of solid and liquid waste.11 We are of the

http://cpheeo.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/engineering_chapter7.pdf

11

(i) O.A. No. 142/2016(THC), Sheikh Rashid Charitable Foundation, (Malegaon) & Ors. v.
UOI & Ors., order dated 05.12.2017, relating to release of amount for functioning of
sewage treatment plant in Malegaon.
(ii) O.A. No. 177/2016(THC), Kaustubha Ghokhale & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Through
Chief Secretary & Ors., order dated 23.10.2017, relating to grant of public hearing in case
of grant of EC to MSW Processing Plant at Umbarde and Barave.
(iii) O.A. No. 177/2016(THC), Kaustubha Ghokhale & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Through
Chief Secretary & Ors., order dated 23.10.2017, relating to grant of public hearing in case
of grant of EC to MSW Processing Plant at Umbarde and Barave.
(iv) O.A. No. 122/2017, Dileep Gopal Mangankar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. order dated
31.01.20118, seeking direction the respondents to take steps in order to manage, collect,
segregate, transport and disposal of the msw as per Rules.
(v) O.A. No. 168/2017, Mr. Omkar Ajit Keni V/s The Deputy Director (Forest) Sawantwadi,
& Ors., order dated 17.07.2018, relating to removal of garbage dumped around
Dhamapur Lake, Sindhudurg District.
(vi) O.A. No. 179/2017, Mr. Atul Kishor Karle & Ors. V/s The Collector, Pune & Ors., order
dated 21.07.2017, seeking direction against respondent for not dumping msw and its
proper disposal.
(vii) O.A. No. 11/2018, Amir Shaikh & Ors. v. Haji Ali Dargah Trust & Ors., order dated
25.08.2022, seeking direction against respondents to immediately stop releasing
excrement/untreated sewage into the sea.
(viii) O.A. No. 40/2019, Rajkumar Kukreja & Anr. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation &
Ors., order dated 23.08.2022, seeking direction against respondents to stop unauthorized
dumping of municipal solid waste.
(ix) Original Application No. 60/2019(WZ), Ganesh Dadarao Anasane v. Amravati Municipal
Corporation & Anr. order dated 07.09.2022, relating to illegal dumping of solid waste at
Sukali Dumping ground in Amravati, Maharashtra.

30
 view that issues have been identified and monitored by the Tribunal for a

long time. It is high time that the State realizes its duty to law and to

citizens and adopts further monitoring at its own level.

Conclusion with expression of hope for future remedial action

40. We hope in the light of interaction with the Chief Secretary,

Maharashtra that he will take further measures in the matter by

innovative approach, stringent monitoring at appropriate level,

including at the level of the District Magistrates (who execute the

(x) Original Application No. 14/2020(WZ), Mohan Nanasaheb Kudale v. Pune Municipal
Corporation & Ors., order dated 17.01.2022 relating to operation of an incinerator plant
for disposal of animal carcass on land situated at Keshavnagar, Mundhwa, Pune.
(xi) Original Application No. 29/2020(WZ), Suraj Pradip Ajmera v. Aurangabad Municipal
Corporation, order dated 09.03.2022, relating to absence of scientific management of
sewage problem in Aurangabad city.
(xii) Original Application No.59/2020 (WZ), Riverdale Vista Co-operative Housing Society v.
MoEF &CC & Ors., order dated 16.11.2021 relating to Common Municipal Solid Waste
Management Facility Site at Revenue Village Barave in contravention of Solid Waste
Management Rules 2016.
(xiii) Original Application No.62/2020 (WZ), Dagadkhan Asanghatit Kamgar Vikas Parishad
Maharashtra v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., order dated 17.11.2021 relating to Illegal
dumping of municipal solid waste by the Wagholi Gram Panchayat and Pune Metropolitan
Region Development Authority on common land next to residential apartments and
hutments of quarry workers at Wageshwarnagar in Village Wagholi, Taluka Haweli,
District Pune.
(xiv) Original Application No. 84/2020 (WZ), Dhananjay Balwant Kokate & Anr. v. Union of
India & Ors., order dated 08.12.2021 relating to Setting up of a Garbage Processing Plant
at Survey No. 51/10, Ambegaon Bk., Pune.
(xv) Original Application No. 32/2021(WZ), Charan Ravindra Bhatt v. Vasai-Virar City
Municipal Corporation & Anr. order dated 07.12.2021 relating to Failure of Vasai – Virar
Municipal Corporation in performing its statutory obligation of providing clean
environment by scientific disposal of solid and liquid waste.
(xvi) Original Application No. 55/2021(WZ), Tousif Bagnikar v. Nix Paolymers & Ors., order
dated 03.12.2021 relating to illegally dumping, untreated toxic effluent by respondent
no.1 from the polyester resin plant into Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
(MIDC Drain) which in turn flows into river Krishna.
(xvii) Org. Application No. 75/2021(WZ), The Cliff Gardem Condominium B & C v. Gram
Panchayat, Maan & Ors., order dated 10.03.2022 relating to failure of Authorities in the
State of Maharashtra to follow Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 in Village Maan,
Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune, near housing society - Cliff Garden Condominium, MIDC infotech
Park, Maan, Pune.
(xviii) Original Application No. 33/2022(WZ), Sanjay Vishwanath Lature & Ors v. Solapur
Municipal Corporation & Ors., order dated 18.07.2022 relating to land filling site- to
remove the set-up of abandoned processing plant at survey nos. 73 and 74/1 of Village
Kasabe Solapur, Taluka-North Solapur, District Solapur.

31
District Environment Plans) and the Chief Secretary, ensuring that

the gap in solid and liquid waste generation and treatment is bridged

at the earliest, shortening the proposed timelines, adopting

alternative/interim measures to the extent and wherever found

viable.

41. The Chief Secretary may consider designating a Senior Nodal Officer

at the rank of ACS to regularly assess the progress in bridging the gaps in

sewage and solid waste management and establishing stocktaking at

district level. Existing and upcoming STPs need to have linkages with

industries and other bulk users including Agriculture/horticulture for

using treated sewage. Legacy waste sites need to be remediated and

reclaimed areas utilized for setting up of waste processing plants so to

process day-to-day waste generation. More and more green belts/dense

forests need to be set up to mitigate adverse impact of waste. Based on the

gained experience, standardized processing and treatment methodologies

be replicated for areas of other Corporations, Municipalities and

Panchayats.

42. Laid down statutory norms need to be complied as per prescribed

timelines and directions in the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and

this Tribunal, including directions in orders dated 25.4.2019, 28.2.2020

and 14.12.2020 and other orders in individual cases. In the light of

observations in paras 14, 19 and 22 above, accountability be fixed for

erring officers and compensation collected and utilised, as already

directed.

Need for monitoring by NMCG and MoUD NMCG, SBM and Amrut
schemes

32
43. In view of continuing huge gap in solid and liquid waste generation

and treatment, it is high time that Ministry of Housing and Urban

Development (MoUD) and National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG) who

have programmes like Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), AMRUT - 1 and 2.0

and River Cleaning, appropriately monitor compliance of waste

management norms by concerned States and take remedial action on their

part. MoEF&CC and CPCB may continue monitoring as per MSW Rules

and the Water Act.

Determination of liability for compensation for restoration of

environment

44. Apart from compliance in future, the liability of the State has to

be fixed for the past violations in the light of earlier binding orders

passed in pursuance of orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated

2.9.2014 in WP 888/1996, Almitra Patel and dated 22.2.2017 in WP

375/2012, Paryavaran Suraksha. Order dated 22.12.2016 in Almitra

Patel clearly laid down liability for compensation for breach of

statutory timelines. Similarly, liability for compensation was laid

down for failing to install water pollution control devices after

31.3.2020. The Tribunal has to follow ‘Polluter Pays’ principle under

Section 20 of the NGT Act. The State Authorities contributing to the

pollution by failing in their constitutional duties are to be held accountable

on this principle. Admittedly, timelines under Supreme Court orders and

orders of this Tribunal for preventing water pollution and statutory

timelines for solid waste management are over. Thus, atleast from

01.01.2021, the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle has to be applied. Compensation

has to be equal to the loss to the environment and also taking into account

cost of remediation.

33
45. In our recent order dated 01.09.2022 in O.A No. 606/2018 (in

respect of State of West Bengal), considering scale of compensation

adopted in earlier cases including in OA No. 1002/2018, Abhisht Kusum

Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., compensation was determined @

Rs. 2 Crore per MLD for untreated liquid waste and in OA No. 286/2022

for unprocessed legacy waste compensation was fixed @ Rs. 300 per MT to

be utilized for restoration measures, including preventing discharge of

untreated sewage and solid waste treatment/processing facilities, as per

appropriate mechanism for planning and execution that may be evolved,

within three months. Operative part of the said order is reproduced below:-

“Conclusion about quantum of compensation

49. In the light of above and considering damage to the recipient

environment, we hold that apart from ensuring compliance at the
earliest, compensation has to be paid by the State for past
violations. The amount of compensation is fixed @ Rs. 2 crore per
MLD (at which rate compensation has been levied against Noida
and DJB in OA No. 1002/2018, Abhisht Kusum Gupta vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors, referred to in para 48 above for detailed
reasons mentioned therein). As noted earlier, gap in generation
and treatment in West Bengal, as per data furnished is
1490 MLD. Thus, under this head, liability of the State of
West Bengal is to pay compensation of Rs. 2980 crores,
rounded off to Rs. 3000 crore in view of continuing damage.
For failure to process solid waste, unprocessed legacy waste
being 1.20 crore MT, compensation is assessed @ Rs. 300
per MT (at which approximate rate compensation has been
awarded in OA No. 286/2022 against Municipal
Corporation, Ludhiana, for the reasons given therein). This
works out to Rs. 366 crore but adding 134 crore for
continuing addition of unprocessed waste @ 13469.19 TPD,
the total amount is rounded off to Rs. 500 crore. Thus, final
amount of compensation under the two heads (solid and
liquid waste) is assessed at Rs. 3500 crores which may be
deposited by the State of West Bengal in a separate ring-
fenced account within two months, to be operated as per
directions of the Chief Secretary and utilised for restoration
measures, including preventing discharge of untreated sewage
and solid waste treatment/processing facilities, as per appropriate
mechanism for planning and execution that may be evolved, within
three months. If violations continue, liability to pay additional
compensation may have to be considered. Compliance will be the
responsibility of the Chief Secretary.”

34
46. Following the above pattern, we determine compensation payable by

the State of Maharashtra. In respect of gap in treatment of liquid waste/

sewage i.e. 5420.33 MLD, compensation works out to Rs. 10840.66

crores and compensation for un-remediated legacy waste to the extent

of 3,94,19,287 works out roughly to about Rs. 1200 crores. We round

off the compensation amount @ Rs. 12,000/- crores which may be

deposited by the State of Maharashtra in a separate ring-fenced

account within two months, to be operated as per directions of the

Chief Secretary and utilised for restoration measures. The restoration

measures with respect to sewage management would include setting up of

sewage treatment and utilization systems, upgrading systems/operations

to ensure utilization of their full capacities, ensuring compliance of

standards, including those of fecal coliform and setting up of proper fecal

sewage and sludge management in rural areas. With regard to solid waste

management, the action plan would include setting up of required waste

processing plants and remediation of left out 84 sites. Bio-

remediation/bio-mining process need to be executed as per CPCB

guidelines and the stabilized organic waste from biomining as well as from

compost plants need to comply with laid down specifications. Other

material recovered during such processes are to be put to use through

authorized dealers/handlers/users. This restoration plan needs to be

planned and executed in a time bound manner without further delay. If

violations continue, liability to pay additional compensation may have to

be considered. Compliance will be the responsibility of the Chief Secretary.

47. Award of above compensation has become necessary under section

15 of the NGT Act to remedy the continuing damage to the environment

and to comply with directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court requiring this

Tribunal to monitor enforcement of norms for solid and liquid waste

35
management. Moreover, without fixing quantified liability necessary for

restoration, mere passing of orders has not shown any tangible results in

the last eight years (for solid waste management) and five years (for liquid

waste management), even after expiry of statutory/laid down timelines.

Continuing damage is required to be prevented in future and past damage

is to be restored.

Directions for further follow up

48. Further, six monthly progress reports may be filed by the Chief

Secretary with a copy to the Registrar General of this Tribunal by e-mail

at judicial-ngt@gov.in preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR

Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF. Copies thereof may be

furnished to the NMCG, MoUD and CPCB and also be placed on the website

of the State Government.

IA No. 163/2021 stands dismissed in light of today’s proceedings.

A copy of this order be forwarded for compliance to the Chief

Secretary, Maharashtra, Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban

Development, MoEF&CC, GoI, National Mission for Clean Ganga and

CPCB.

On report being filed with the Registrar General of this Tribunal, the

same may be placed before the Bench, if found necessary.

If any grievance survives, it will be open to the aggrieved parties to

take further remedies as per law.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

36
 Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM

September 08, 2022

Original Application No. 606/2018

37