National Green Tribunal
Compliance Of Municipal Solid Waste ... vs . Union Of India &Ors., With Regard To ... on 1 May, 2025
Item No. 23 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 606/2018
(IA Nos. 20/2025, 299/2024 & 163/2021)
(In respect of State of Telangana)
Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and other
environmental issues.
Date of hearing: 01.05.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
.
Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sravan Kumar, Mr.
Venkat Raju P, Ms. Eisha Krishn, Ms. Gitanjali Sanyal, Ms. Anukriti
Bajpai & Ms. M. Harshini, Advs. with Mr. Mayank Mittal, Executive
Director, HMWSSB & Mr. R. Sathyalingam, OSD
Mr. Dhananjay Baijal, Adv. for Telangana PCB
Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for CPCB (Through VC)
ORDER
1. In this original application, Tribunal is considering the issue of solid as well as liquid waste management as per orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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 (sewage).
2. Today, matter has been taken up in respect of compliance by State of Telangana.
3. We have examined the status report filed in IA of OA 606/2018 dated 03.03.2025 filed by Principal Secretary MA&UDD disclosing the status of sewage and solid waste management. 1
4. We find that report has addressed to respond to the observations made in the order of the Tribunal dated 22.08.2024 and financial tie ups showing dependency reliance on share funding from Central Government.
5. On examination of the report, we find that data presented on solid and liquid waste management had been focused around Hyderabad and not disclosing factual status with respect to other ULBs in the State. There should have been executable plan by now rather working on data estimated currently, firming up DPRs or going covering individual ULB or adopting cluster approach etc; We do not find status for each ULB on solid and sewage management giving Generation, Processing/ Treatment, Gap, Awards to executing Agency, timelines and Monitoring mechanism.
6. We list out following deficiencies and gaps and next report should in addition to responding to the observations in the form of affidavit. The observations;
[A] Solid Waste Management:
i) The gap in waste processing is 2044.0 TPD which is targeted to be accomplished by 30.5.2025. We find such gap in each ULB shall be accounted as legacy waste.
ii) Gap in biodegradable waste processing is 1101.5 TPD and this gap is 942.5 TPD for non-biodegradable waste. We find the gap is more prominent in smaller ULBs, therefore, standardized operational designs should be adopted/replicated rather losing time on each ULB.
iii) Till waste processing facilities are set up, it is proposed to utilize services of the Agencies engaged for bio mining but, tie up of 141 ULB with this arrangement or with 9 clusters, is not disclosed and this should be clarified.
2
iv) We find from a Tabulated statement on page 3213 that, out of 141 ULBs, 31 ULBs are disclosing Zero gap and as per this disclosure, these ULBs should not be having legacy waste and if it is the factual and ground status then, statement to this effect be made in next affidavit. Further, we require executable plan on remaining 110 ULBs. The other ULBs (MO) should adopt the similar mechanism as done by 31 ULBs like Dharmapuri, Dhammaiguda, Nizampet, Jawaharnagar and others. However, for large ULBs, integrated approach with combination of processes like Warangal, Ramagundam, Nizamabad, Mahaboob Nagar, Khammam, Karimnagar, and others should be adopted.
V) With respect to GHMC, we find that 1272 TPD of inerts are disposed through landfill. At this stage, we direct to comply with SWM Rules and ensuring no leachable waste is deposited which should be checked through TCLP tests. Further, no information is disclosed on performance of waste to energy plants of 38.5 MW for compliance with the conditions of CTO and management of arrested fly and bottom and these details should be disclosed in next affidavit.
[B] Legacy Waste:
i) On re-assessment, estimated legacy waste has been reported to be brought down to 21.56 lakh metric tons (LMT) from 38. 46 LMT.
On the query raised on the quantities processed per day along with residue management particularly other than GHMC, was not disclosed.
ii) After finding gap in waste processing in 110 ULBs from tabulated statement disclosed on page 3213, correspondingly, legacy waste 3 for these ULBs, has not been disclosed and we direct to provide details in the next affidavit. Overall, land reclaimed should also be disclosed.
iii) Photographs along with the report indicate the legacy waste dumps being covered with soil and the dumps are consolidated and torfed. If so may indicate such legacy waste dumps covered and NOC Obtained from PCB. Ground water analysis of such sites are to be analyzed and reported.
[C] Sewage Management:
i) We find that out of estimated sewage generation of 910.85 MLD by 116 ULBs, only 167.80 MLD is treated leaving huge gap (Annexure 14 page 3593). Except Karim Nagar, Warangal, Nagakurnul and Vikarabad, no ULB is having sewage management facilities. Considering size of ULBs, standardized module should be adopted including Modular STPs.
Next affidavit should give finalized workable plan with timelines.
ii) We find that in a city like Hyderabad, there will remain a gap of 72 MLD which is expected to be treated by 2027. Tribunal while dealing the matter on Musi river, it was noted that this river is falling under the polluted stretches and large quantities of sewage were disclosed.
iii) We find from analytical reports (page 3441) that analysis of TC was done for samples collected from STPs whereas, standards of FC have been directed and reason for not analysis of FC should be explained. State PCB should provide performance of STPs in GHMC area for CTO conditions and FC comparing with standards directed by Tribunal in OA No.1069/2018. 4
iv) We find no details on utilisation of treated sewage particularly in Hyderabad. Upcoming STPs should have connectivity ensured and systems to utilize treated water.
[D] Ring Fence Account:
We find no disclosure on ring fencing of amount as per the gap on solid and liquid waste management.
Next report should give funds allocated to each ULB and not be totally dependent on funding from Central Government.
7. Let a fresh action taken report be filed by the State of Telangana covering the aspects noted above at least one week before the next date of hearing by way of affidavit through e-filing.
8. List the matter on 25.11.2025 for consideration of report in respect of State of Telangana.
9. For the State of Uttar Pradesh, the matter be listed on 08.05.2025 as per the earlier direction.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM May 01, 2025 Original Application No. 606/2018 (IA Nos. 20/2025, 299/2024 & 163/2021) JG.
5