HC slaps Rs 10K cost on MC for delay

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (MC) for seeking last-minute permission to place a reply in the UT garbage dump case. The reply was to be submitted in response to a petitioner’s plea alleging a sustained pattern of perjury by the MC and the Chandigarh Administration.

Advertisement

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel rejected the MC’s plea for exemption from costs, while making it clear that the reply would only be considered after proof of payment was submitted.

The cost was imposed during the resumed hearing of applications filed by petitioner-advocate Amit Sharma, who has accused the authorities of systematically misleading the court to cover up the ongoing violations of solid waste management rules. Sharma contended that the garbage mound at Dadu Majra had multiplied over the years. “They claimed the first two dumps were cleared, denied the existence of a third when I produced photographs. They only admitted it after their attempt to transfer the case failed. Now, this third dump has grown to over 2.40 lakh metric tonnes within weeks, despite their claim that no fresh waste is being dumped,” Sharma told the court.

Referring to a report submitted by the High Court Registrar-General with supporting photographs, Chief Justice Nagu expressed concern over the proximity of residential areas to the dump site. Defending the MC, advocate Gaurav Mohunta argued that the land had been designated for waste dumping in 1988 and residential colonies had come up later. Sharma countered the claim, stating that houses were allotted as early as 1979 and citing a plaque commemorating a visit by former Prime Minister Morarji Desai in the area.

Mohunta further submitted that the MC had already cleared the older dumps and was actively working on waste management. He argued that the petitioner was relying on data from 2016 to 2020—the period when waste management was handled by an external contractor. Sharma dubbed this as a diversion, pointing to a longstanding pattern of delays and blame-shifting. “In 2016, the MC denied any issues at the dump, submitting reports that claimed no air or groundwater contamination. Only when the court sought photographs of an adjoining school in 2017 did they start seeking adjournments and later impleaded the contractor. This cycle of delaying replies and shifting blame has continued for years while the dumps remain,” Sharma said.

Opposing another adjournment sought by the Chandigarh Administration, Sharma presented a detailed timeline, underscoring how his PIL, admitted in 2021, was part of a larger case where the MC had been deploying similar delay tactics since 2016 — seeking repeated extensions, failing to file replies and responding only when the court ordered the personal appearance of the Commissioner.

Despite facing a notice for perjury in 2023, Sharma said, the MC submitted a document misrepresented as a tender, failed to serve a copy to the petitioner, and falsely claimed it was available online. “When I couldn’t find it online, I sought certified copies. It turned out to be a tampered project report with over 150 handwritten changes — nowhere close to a valid tender and in clear violation of solid waste management rules,” Sharma submitted.