NGT pulls up PPCB for no action over violations by Bathinda MC

Chandigarh: The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has pulled up Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) for failing to take appropriate action against “large-scale” environmental violations committed by the municipal corporation (MC) of Bathinda.
The tribunal has issued a notice to the board, directing it to submit a reply within 10 days. The board has been asked to explain what action has been taken in the matter and if no action has been taken, PPCB member secretary must explain why and identify the person responsible for such failure.

The directions were issued by a bench comprising Sudhir Agarwal and Dr Afroz Ahmad in a case pertaining to the dumping of solid waste in Bathinda by the MC, where a fire occurred on June 6, 2021.The fire erupted from the large quantity of inflammable material lying in the open space at the dump site.
In the complaint, it was alleged that the private firm hired by the MC for handling solid waste was not functioning properly and not processing municipal waste as per the agreement, which the tribunal found to be correct.
The tribunal pointed out that the MC tried to place the entire blame upon the concessionaire of the municipal solid waste processing facility at Bathinda. However, it was of the view that the prime responsibility with regard to the management, handling, and processing of solid waste was that of the MC, as per Rule 15 of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, and it failed to discharge its functions. Therefore, it violated the mandate of the said provisions, which also amounts to an offence under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, said NGT.
Bathinda municipal commissioner submitted that the daily collected solid waste is regularly processed. However, from the records, the tribunal did not find relevant material to demonstrate that the entire daily generated waste is being processed properly at the relevant sites. Upon reviewing records, the tribunal found that although there is large-scale violation of statutory provisions related to environment on the part of the MC, no appropriate action has been taken by PPCB either by imposing environmental compensation or initiating criminal prosecution or by taking any other remedial punitive and preventive action. The counsel appearing for the MC sought time to file an additional affidavit placing on record all relevant facts in this regard.
Next hearing on Aug 1
The tribunal, in the order, stated: “In our view, the impleadment of PPCB is necessary. Therefore, it is impleaded as a respondent. PPCB shall file a reply within 10 days, particularly to show what action has been taken by it in this matter. If no action has been taken, the member secretary of PPCB shall explain why no action has been taken and who is the person responsible for such failure.” The case is listed for hearing on Aug 1.