BYAS MUNI DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 & 3, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 4, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.5 and Mr. Yogendra Pandey, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Animesh Twiari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.6.

(2.) The present writ petition styled as 'Public Interest Litigation' has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a social activist and a journalist and is a resident of a colony which is adjoining the new dumping site at Sakri. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are the elected representatives of various villages surrounding the new dumping ground at Sakri. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court because of the atrocious action being pursued by the Municipal Corporation in dumping solid waste in the village of Sakri, without any regard to the relevant provisions of law or taking effective steps for proper waste disposal in terms of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (for short 'the Rules of 2016'). Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the solid waste cannot be dumped as now sought to be pursued by the Municipality and that the same has to be segregated as envisaged under the Rules. That apart, dumping of the waste can only be under exceptional circumstances, when the plant set up in this regard is not working or when there is a national calamity. It is also pointed out that the Municipality was dumping the waste elsewhere, till recently, and by virtue of the interference of this Court (at the instance of some other litigant who approached this Court pro bono publico), the dumping site has been changed and that's all. Learned counsel for the petitioners highlights the poor plight of the local inhabitants, whose residential premises are situated close to the 'dumping site' allotted by the State Government to the 5th respondent Municipal Corporation, stated as a temporary measure, pending construction of the plant for solid waste management, where the solid wastes are brought and dumped without even satisfying the requirements pointed out by the Environment Conservation Board of the State. The residential colony is stated as situated within a range of 50 metres from the dumping site and that, there is a water body within a radius of 200 metres. This by itself involves clear violation of the statutory prescriptions. If this be the position, under what circumstances was the site identified by the State and given to the Municipality to be used as a 'dumping site', is a matter to be investigated.