Clear Dadu Majra dump by May or face contempt, court tells MC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today warned that contempt proceedings would be initiated against the authorities if they failed to clear the Dadu Majra garbage dump by May.
As the hearing on the issue resumed before the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, Municipal Corporation (MC) counsel Gaurav Mohunta reiterated that significant progress had been made. The Bench was told that the first two garbage dumps had been cleared. The third dump, which has emerged, would be removed by May.
But petitioner-advocate Amit Sharma, appearing in person, contested the claims, arguing that similar assurances and deadlines had been given over the past decade.
Sharma pointed out that the MC claimed clearing the previous dumps, but leachate continued to flow to date
He added the MC attempted to cover this up by using mud. He also presented drone footage recorded as recently as January 7, which showed ongoing seepage.
Sharma also told the Bench that 486 fires had been recorded at the site, with 45 lakh litres of water used to douse some of them. These fires, which continued for weeks in certain cases, were only controlled after the High Court admitted the 2021 PIL and summoned the Municipal Commissioner, Sharma emphasised.
Sharma further alleged that the MC had been misleading the court for years by falsely claiming compliance with Solid Waste Management Rules. He pointed out that the rules required the construction of a boundary wall and a leachate treatment plant — both of which the MC had claimed were in place. But the ground reality was different. Leachate continued to seep into nearby residential areas, and the boundary wall, constructed in 2022, collapsed in 2023. Sharma accused the MC of withholding information about the collapse until the court was told about it, leading to the issuance of a notice of perjury. He argued that the MC’s admission that the wall had been broken before filing its status report amounted to an acknowledgment of perjury.
In response to the collapse, the MC counsel contended that heavy rainfall in July caused the damage. Sharma countered by questioning why this was not disclosed in the status report and how a newly constructed wall could fall so soon if proper construction standards had been followed.
Sharma also informed the court that despite being on notice for perjury, the MC had sought the disposal of the PIL by submitting a fabricated project report. This report, supposedly prepared by an IIT waste management expert, was actually created by an electrical engineering department and contained over 150 handwritten financial alterations. Sharma argued that the report did not comply with solid waste management regulations and was yet another deliberate attempt to mislead the court.
After hearing the arguments, the court directed the petitioner to submit a synopsis of his arguments on perjury by the next hearing. The matter has been adjourned to February 27.