State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Citizen Consumer And Civic Action ... vs The Commissioner Corporation Of ... on 5 March, 2008
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present : Hon'ble Thiru Justice K.SAMPATH PRESIDENT Thiru Pon. GUNASEKARAN, B.A., B.L., MEMBER-I C.C. No. 44/2007 DATED THIS THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH, 2008 Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group : Complainant Represented by its Trustee Mr.N.L.Rajah 9/5, II Street, Padmanabha Nagar, Adyar, Chennai : 600 020. Vs. 1. The Commissioner :: 1st Opposite party Corporation of Chennai, rep. by Adv. Ripon Buildings, Mr.P.Udayakumar No.1131, E.V.R. Periyar Salai, Chennai : 600 003. 2. Neel Metal Fanalca Environment :: 2nd Opposite party Management Pvt. Ltd rep. by Adv. Rep. by its General Manager M/s.V.P.Raju Plot No.1868, I Block, 26th Street, Anna Nagar West, Chennai:600040. O R D E R
K.SAMPATH J .
The prayer in the complaint runs as follows: - To pass an order directing
(a) the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs as damages to the State Consumer Welfare Fund for the deficiency in service in not clearing the garbage in the area allotted to it from 25/8/2007 till 28/8/2007 and on every day when the default continued ;
(b) to install adequate number of garbage bins to and recruit adequate number of personnel not being lesser than the numbers recruited by ONYX the earlier contractor to clear garbage and Municipal wastes in the areas allotted to it in the Chennai Corporation ; and
(c) to grant such further or other orders as this Honble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case on the following allegations :- The complainant is a registered Trust working towards protecting the citizens rights in consumer and environmental issues. The 1st respondent representing the Chennai Corporation which is under a statutory obligation to ensure that the city is kept clean and safe by carrying out all the necessary actions to remove the garbage in the city regularly, has entered into a contract with the 2nd opposite party as could be seen from the announcement in the newspaper The Hindu dated 26/8/2007 for collection and removal of garbage of municipal wastes from the city from the said date onwards in respect of Ice House, Adyar, Pulianthope and Kodambakkam [Zone Nos.6, 10, 3 and 8]. The 2nd opposite party has miserably failed to take any initiatives to remove the municipal wastes since 25/8/2007 and the city is now accumulated with huge wastes and has become a breeding place for mosquitoes and other insects and thus endangering the health of the people in the Chennai Corporation limits. Money to the 2nd opposite party has been paid from the taxpayers funds. The citizens living in these zones are beneficiaries and therefore entitled collectively through the complainant to file this complaint.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant took out two applications viz., (1) MP No.112/2007 for a direction to the opposite parties to install adequate number of garbage bins in those zones and (2)MP No.113/2007 for a direction to the 2nd opposite party to clear the accumulated garbage in those zones forthwith. After notice was ordered to them, the opposite parties also appeared before us.
On 31/8/2007 Mr.G.A. Dominic Savio Joseph representing the 2nd opposite party undertook to file a clear affidavit on 3/9/2007 committing themselves to remove the accumulated garbage by 5/9/2007. On 31/8/2007 this Commission passed an order to the following effect:-
The situation is pretty serious and the consequences will be unimaginable. It will lead to cholera, leptospirosis, etc. It is rather unfortunate that the authorities have not realized the seriousness of the situation. Call on :
03/09/2007 On 7/9/2007 the 1st opposite party filed an affidavit denying the various allegations and averments made by the complainant and stating further as follows: - After noticing the accumulated garbage the 1st opposite party took necessary action by deploying adequate staff and vehicles to remove the garbage. The 1st opposite party also issued a statutory notice to the 2nd opposite party to execute the work as per the contract entered into between opposite parties 1 and 2. The 1st opposite party directed the 2nd opposite party to deploy adequate vehicles for the complete removal of the garbage from the streets.
On 26/8/2007 the operation started for removal of garbage and as on the date of swearing to the counter viz., 6/9/2007, there was no accumulation/backlog of garbage in the service area of the 2nd opposite party. The counter prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Meanwhile, the complainant took out an application for the appointment of Advocate Commissioners for submission of factual report on the clearance of accumulated garbage in Zones 6, 10, 3 and
8. We appointed Mr.S.Natarajan and Dr.V.Suresh, Advocates, as Advocate Commissioners. We requested Mr.S.Natarajan to visit Kodambakkam and Pulianthope [Zones 3 & 8] and Dr.V.Suresh to visit Ice House and Adyar [Zones 6 and 10]. We also permitted them to take the assistance of photographers and to collect affidavits from the residents of the four zones. We also asked them to give their cell phone numbers to the residents in case the residents needed to report about the garbage accumulation in their area. We requested them to visit their respective zones during the next seven days at hours convenient to them after putting the complainant and the opposite parties on notice. The Advocate Commissioners accordingly visited their respective zones and Mr.S.Natarajan filed a final report while Dr.V.Suresh filed an interim report and thereafter a final report. Mr.S.Natarajans report is dated 24/9/2007 and of Dr.V.Suresh the interim report is dated 17/9/2007 and the final report 28/9/2007.
4. On 8/10/2007 the 2nd opposite party filed a counter in MP No.113/2007 through their Vice President Mr.S.Pattabhiraman and the material portions are as under: - The State Government is the competent authority to decide the issues arising in the complaint. These are all factual aspects and have to be decided elsewhere and not before the Consumer Commission. The job was assigned to the 2nd opposite party only on 26/8/2007. The complaint came to be filed on 28/8/2007 which is premature. This Commission has to give adequate opportunity to the 2nd opposite party before taking the complaint on file. Not only that, on the date of taking over the assignment, there was unprecedented sudden rain in the city. In spite of such a major natural calamity the 2nd opposite party removed the entire backlog in a record time and created history. The removal of garbage by the 2nd opposite party was also admitted by all concerned. The Honble Minister for Local Administration in fact appreciated the work done by the 2nd opposite party. Even if the garbage is segregated that would be mixed by the street dogs and rag pickers.
In a country like India, street dogs and rag pickers should be eliminated first.
Then only segregation is possible in India. The petition has been filed by the complainant as if we are living in a very advanced country. In any event, the 2nd opposite party is making all efforts to segregate the waste materials to the maximum extent following the procedure and rules and regulations envisaged under the Waste Management Rules and adhere to all the Pollution Control Rules and norms and safety measures to the workers. The 2nd opposite party is taking all efforts to bring world class machines and vehicles to remove the garbage of Chennai. The officials of the Chennai Corporation too conducted classes for more than 100 persons in Lakshmipuram, Avvai Shanmugam Road, Royapettah, for door to door collection and how to segregate the waste materials. Rag pickers mainly segregate the recycling materials like aluminium, plastic and steel and create a mess in the area. To avoid these things, Chennai Corporation is planning to construct pucca cement house.
Though this counter purports to be a counter to MP No.113/2007, the contents relate to the further application filed by the complainant in MP No.153/2007 for a direction to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to inspect the facilities and operations of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and submit a report to this Commission as to whether proper authorisation has been issued under the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 2000 and whether the facilities provided by the 1st and the 2nd opposite parties are in consonance with the provisions of these Rules and satisfy the standards set out in Schedules II, III and IV. In the counter, the 2nd opposite party has further stated that the affidavit filed in MP No.153/2007 has been so filed in consonance with the Advocate Commissioner Dr.V.Sureshs report, and the petition being based on the Advocate Commissioners report there is an attempt to improve on the original complaint, it has to be rejected.
5. Let us now have a look at the reports of the Advocate Commissioners.
Mr.S.Natarajan has recorded as follows: - During his discussion with the representatives of the parties he was informed and he was also given a certificate by the Assistant Commissioner Zone III that Pulianthope Zone was yet to be handed over to the 2nd opposite party. The Advocate Commissioner visited Kodambakkam. On reaching the 2nd opposite partys transfer point at Lake View Road at around 11 am he found fresh garbage piled all along without dustbins.
One Mrs.Varadhambal of Krishna Street represented that the previous contractor had done an effective job and she pointed out the lack of dustbins and clearance time. Another lady Mrs.Nalini of Dharmapuram Main Road spoke of irregular cleaning and lack of dustbins and replacement of big dustbins.
Mr.C.V.Murali reported that the garbage clearance which was bad in the transition period had greatly improved.
Mr.Venkatesa Perumal Chetty of Thirumurthy Street complained of lack of dustbins and the nuisance of tourist cars parking, open urination near dustbins. Dr.Sandhya residing opposite to Minister Mr.Veerapandi Arumugams house complained of garbage dumping and the delay in clearing the garbage causing health hazard.
According to Mrs.G.Lalitha of Bazullah Road, the garbage clearance was regularised after four days. A travel through Pondy Bazaar by the Advocate Commissioner showed lack of dustbins and everyday accumulation. His visit to K.K. Nagar and Nesapakkam showed residents complaining of lack of dustbins and delayed clearance of garbage. The Commissioner could see overflowing dustbins at Rajamannar Salai, Meenakshi College of Engineering, Valasaravakkam awaiting clearance. Overturned dustbins were common in places and so was the sight of garbage strewn around the dustbins. The lawyers of the 1st opposite party briefed the Commissioner on the take over and the initial problems faced. His visit on 12/9/2007 to Dasarathapuram, Arunachalam Road at Saligramam showed lack of dustbins and delayed and irregular garbage clearance.
On 14/9/2007 when he visited Chakrapani Street, only then the garbage was being removed and it had not been removed till he visited the site. As informed by Mr.R.Balaji, Citibank Advocate, Rangarajapuram showed slackness and delay in removal of garbage. The Commissioners visit to Pulianthope on 15/9/2007 showed garbage removal at a slow pace and in K.P.Park the inmates lamented the irregular garbage removal. He was shocked to see the squalor they were living in.
Conservancy workers were doing their job but the complaints remained unattended according to the residents of Dr.Ansari Street.
He could see from the above that the accumulated garbage had been speedily removed on courts orders. The lack of compactors, dustbins the arrival of which was delayed but said to be ready by 25/9/2007, irregular garbage removal were pointed out by all people.
The lack of dustbins and their size made it worse. The photographs taken would show the squalor around K.P. Park and this would also be a convincing evidence of delay in the garbage clearance. To add to this agony, demand of money to clear the garbage was made in certain areas which complaints went unheeded. There is an immediate need for removal of debris as well to prevent the drain blocks. The learned Advocate Commissioner has enclosed a number of photographs, which project a deplorable state of affairs.
6. Coming to the report of Advocate Commissioner Dr.V.Suresh, we have already noted that he submitted two reports an interim report and a final report. In the interim report this is what he has stated: - He had requested the officials of the opposite parties to be present during the visits. He had also asked for further details from the opposite parties 1 and 2. From the 1st opposite party he had asked for the following:-
1. A copy of the contract between the Opposite parties 1 and 2 and other connected documents with regard to collection and management of solid wastes in those two zones allotted to him ;
2. Street maps providing full details of habitations, solid waster dumping/ collection sites and related information ;
3. Demographic data of the number of households, commercial establishments like hotels, kalyana mandapams etc in those two zones ; and
4. Details of the amount of solid waste collected and disposed of in those two zones in the last 8 months from January 2007 till September 2007.
From the 2nd opposite party he had asked for the following:-
1) A copy of the contract between the 1st and the 2nd opposite parties and other connected documents with regard to the collection and management of solid wastes ;
2) Street maps,
3) Demographic data
4) Day-wise details of the amount of solid waste collected and disposed of in those two zones from the time the 2nd opposite party took charge of solid waste collection
5) Total fleet strength utilised from the date of starting the collection ;
6) Details of man power deployed on day-to-day basis starting from the day the 2nd opposite party started collecting solid waste in those two Zones.
The Advocate Commissioner requested that the aforesaid details could be furnished by 14th September 2007 to enable finalisation of the report. Though during the visits some of the basic data about the two zones were provided by the respective Assistant Commissioners, the data relating to daily lifting of solid waste, fleet strength and deployment, personnel deployment date wise and related information had not been provided as on the date of filing the interim report. If only these data had been provided it would have helped to present a more comprehensive picture of the actual status of solid waste clearance in the two zones and also assisted in enabling confirmation of the oral testimonies collected during the field visits and available in the form of written representations. In both the zones, residents pointed out that from the beginning of August 2007 itself the previous service provider viz., M/s.ONYX had started reducing its personnel and removed the bins/ containers they had placed in those places.
Officials confirmed that over the days immediately preceding the ending of the contract, there was reduced removal of garbage with backlog of uncollected garbage accumulating everyday more across the two zones. So much so, that on the 24th of August 2007, the last day of the previous service provider, there were three issues viz., (a) Issue of accumulating and piled up garbage already several days old ; (b) Issue of the impact of total withdrawal of all solid waste collection services by the previous collection agency and the non-availability of full gathering capability by the new agency viz., M/s. Neel Metal Fanalca and (c) A gap of almost a week to 10 days for the new service provider to get their act together and to assemble a sufficiently large enough personnel and fleet strength to be able to collect the backlog. From the records shown, against the average daily removal of about 400 to 450 Metric Tonnes of garbage daily from Zone 10, there was a steady reduction of garbage collected daily by almost a sum of about 50 MT daily. In effect and in reality, this meant that every day there was accumulation of garbage by an amount of 50 MT and above each day. On the night of 24th / 25th August 2007, a situation arose of near total absence of containers like garbage bins with wheels and barrels to collect garbage resulting in overflowing garbage in most streets across the city. This was due to the removal by M/s.ONYX the previous service provider of the garbage collection containers from the parts of the city.
By all accounts there was no procedure contemplated for handing over from one service provider to another or sharing of experiences, issues and challenges either from the side of the Corporation or from the previous service provider. This has resulted in the present problem. On 25th August 2007 the new service provider had the daunting task of collecting several hundred tonnes of solid waste per day. The daily collection in Zone 10 alone amounted to over 400 to 450 MTs. Over the years during which M/s.ONYX were in-charge, the local citizens were used to throwing their daily rubbish and garbage in the places where the bins were located. Earlier in Zone 10 alone 1200 bins of 660 Litres capacity were provided.
This was part of their attempt to door to door collection from some sites especially congested, narrow lanes and streets and in slum areas. People not finding any bin nearby to throw their rubbish went to the places where bins were earlier provided and threw the rubbish. Citizens across the entire stretch of Zone 10 testified to the fact that rubbish had collected into a huge pile. Rains in between made the problem worse turning the entire area into a cess pool of waste, stinking and posing a major health hazard. It took about a week to 10 days, as reported by the citizens in the area individually and as members of Associations, from 25th August 2007 for the accumulated backlog to be carted out. Even after that the garbage was not collected regularly. {Emphasis supplied by us}. Since the garbage collected as fast as it was cleared there was a delay in the further collection of solid waste and there was an accumulation of waste at most times. There was a shortage of personnel. The transition was not covered properly. According to the 2nd opposite party, since the contract was different from the previous one they had not engaged the number of people required as under the previous system. They were caught on the wrong foot having to deal with an issue for which they did not have the strength. Since they did not provide the details relating to the personnel, training, fleet strength and other infrastructural facilities, it is difficult for the Advocate Commissioner to give a status report on the preparedness or lack of interest and the issue of ensuring a similar situation not overtaking the citizens and the city again. Since there was a good idea about how much waste was generated each day from the previous records, the officials ought to have had a plan of ensuring that on the date they took charge they had the requisite vehicles in place. This had not occurred. As a consequence, since the crisis had overtaken them, and they needed to ensure collection of waste, the company sub-contracted with private vehicle owners and other providers including the previous service provider to collect the waste on their behalf and also to dispose of the same at Perungudi.
As on the date of filing of the interim report, full complement of vehicles was still not in place. AGs Colony in West Velachery is one of those places where there was heavy backlog and the same had not been collected. Similarly in one or two places in Mylapore too there were complaints of backlog not being collected. The officials of the opposite parties who were on the spot had noted the places. The real problem was not of backlog but of inadequate removal, irregular visit of crew and vehicles and problem of lack of bins and receptacles for collecting the garbage.{Emphasis supplied by us} There were reports of non-collection of garbage for periods ranging from one to three days. It was difficult in some places to figure out how many days garbage had accumulated.
The Commissioner noted that areas where poorer residents stayed, the system of door to door collection had become well institutionalised. People had grown accustomed to waiting for the sweeper with the bell and would empty their garbage into the manually pushed garbage bin which would then be emptied in a convenient spot for further collection by a lorry or vehicle. The degree of civic responsibility in these areas contrasted sharply from the sense of sensitivity shown to garbage disposal in many a residential colony of high rise apartments and complexes. The irony is that the current crisis has so engulfed everyone that this well-established system is facing the threat of continuity.
After the announcement of appointment of Advocate Commissioners and their impending visit to different areas, there was a marked movement of personnel and vehicles clearing garbage from the areas, even though in a number of places there were slip-ups.
7. In his final report, Advocate Commissioner Dr.V.Suresh has stated as follows: - The Assistant Commissioner, Zone 10, Adyar, provided the following documents:-
1. Copy of the agreement relating to the operational part ;
2. Street maps of Divisions 142 to 155 ;
3. Abstract of households, community centres and hotels with details ;
4. Amount of garbage removed from January 2007 to 19/9/2007 ;
5. Salient features of Zone 10.
Information relating to Zone 6 was not provided separately.
The 2nd opposite party had not provided any material upto the date of filing the report viz., 28th September 2007. The combined total removal of garbage during the period from January 2007 to July 2007 by the previous service provider viz., M/s.ONYX amounted to 88,536.43 MTs, working out to a monthly average of 12,648.06 MTs and an average daily collection of approximately 422 MTs. As of 25/8/2007 the date when the contract of M/s.ONYX expired, 9017.34 MTs is stated to have been removed, which works out to an average of 375.72 MTs collected per day. There is a clear shortfall. If we work it out for 24 days, the solid waste not collected works out to 1110.66 MTs.
When the officials knew that the shortfall accumulated every day, it has not been shown as to what efforts they took to ensure that the previous service provider completed its task. They knew fully well that M/s.ONYX had started removing the collection bins and compactor trucks long before their contract came to an end. This was a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the previous contractor.
It does not appear that the Corporation officials had taken any action against the previous operator for the deficiency in service on their part. There has been a total mismanagement of transition by the officials concerned leading to a huge pile up of garbage all across the city.
The situation of garbage removal has still not come to normalcy in both the zones as on date i.e., 28/9/2007 . Though the collection has definitely improved and there has been a steady increase in the number of waste bins, trucks and vehicles used to collect solid waste, the numbers are nowhere near even midway. As on 27/9/2007, only 599 waste bins had been located in different parts of Zone 10 against the calculated requirement of 1400 bins. Only 9 compactors are said to have been pressed into service. This is an unconfirmed figure collected from oral conversations. In a crowded area where a minimum of 2 to 3 collections are required daily, there is only one collection done especially in interior areas. The removal through trucks or small vehicles is still not fully regular and citizens complain that since the collection is not done at fixed hours, garbage accumulated creating pile ups of solid waste. For houses located in the vicinity of the collection bins, there is continuous difficulty.
8. The complainant Action Group, have taken out yet another application viz, MP No.153/2007 for a direction to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to inspect the facilities and the operations of the 1st and the 2nd Respondents and submit a report to this Commission as to whether proper authorisation has been issued under the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules 2000 and whether the facilities provided by the 1st and the 2nd Respondents are in consonance with the provisions of those Rules and satisfy the standards set out in Schedules II, III and IV thereunder.
In the affidavit filed in support of the application, among other things, it is stated as follows :- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 3,6 and 25 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, the Central Government has enacted the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules 2000[hereinafter referred to as the MSW Rules]. As per Rule 4, the 1st opposite party shall be responsible for the implementation of the provisions of these Rules and for any infrastructure development for collection, storage, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste within the jurisdiction of the Corporation of Chennai. The 1st and the 2nd respondents shall make an application under the said Rules for grant of authorisation for setting up waste processing and disposal facility including landfills from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board [TNPCB]. Neither of the Respondents have complied with the procedure as enumerated under the said Rules. They have not received authorisation from the Pollution Control Board as required under the Rules. The TNPCB shall monitor the compliance of the standard regarding groundwater, ambient air, leachate quality and the compost quality including incineration standards as per Rule 6 of the MSW Rules while issuing the grant of authorisation. The TNPCB shall issue the authorisation to the 2nd respondent or the 3rd respondent stipulating compliance criteria and the standards as specified under the said Rules for collection, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal or for land filling etc. From the agreement entered into between the opposite parties, it is clear that they will have to comply with the provisions of the said Rules.
However, the systems currently put in place by the 2nd respondent do not appear to be in compliance with the said Rules, especially the rules set out in Schedule II relating to segregation, storage and transportation of municipal solid wastes.
It is also not clear whether proper authorisation under the provisions of the MSW Rules have been obtained by the 2nd opposite party.
9. Summons was issued to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to appear before this Commission along with the relevant documents, data, information etc. Pursuant thereto, a senior officer of the TNPCB appeared before us and filed a note stating inter-alia as follows: - Municipal Solid Wastes Management has become an issue of major concern. Improper handling and disposal of the same caused serious environmental problems such as contamination of land soil, ground and surface water. To reduce the volume of solid wastes and to salvage metal scrap, rag pickers tend to set fire to garbage and this resulted in generation of air pollutants, which could cause respiratory problems. A few persistent organic pollutions such as dioxins and furans are also likely to be discharged into the environment whenever garbage is burnt. Open dumping of garbage results in breeding of vectors like flies, mosquito, cockroach, pigs, rodents, stray dogs, crows and other pests which spread communicable diseases like cholera, typhoid, jaundice, dysentery and bird flu. Constraints of space and lack of facilities for scientific management of municipal solid waste is a challenge to all local bodies including Chennai Corporation. Municipal solid wastes are haphazardly dumped, handled and at times set fire in dumping yard located at Kodungaiyur and at Perungudi infringes of Pallikaranai Marsh. Approximately 3200 tonnes per day of garbage is generated in Chennai city out of which around 1200 tonnes of mixed unsegregated garbage is dumped at Kodungaiyur and around 2000 tonnes is disposed of in Perungudi dump yard. In 2000, the Chennai Corporation entrusted the work to M/s.CES Onyx Ltd with the contract of collection, transfer, storage and disposal of garbage. Two transfer stations were provided of which one was located at T.Nagar opposite to Valluvar Kottam and the other was located at Lloyds Road. The garbage was collected by M/s.CES Onyx through dedicated bins, dumpers, placers, skips and it was transported through compactors and bulk cargo handling trucks.
The garbage collected by the private contractor was entrusted to M/s. Neel Metal Fanalca Environmental Management Ltd [2nd opposite party] during August 2007. The garbage collected by the 2nd opposite party is disposed of at Perungudi. During the period of transition when the contract was taken over by the 2nd opposite party from M/s. CES Onyx, there were teething problems in collection of garbage and mount of garbage had accumulated in the streets of Chennai till the problem was resolved. As per the MSW Rules, 2000 the Chennai Corporation has to handle municipal garbage. The municipal authority is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of these rules and for any infrastructure development of collection, storage, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal etc. The municipal authority or the operator of a facility has to make an application in Form 1 for grant of authorisation of wastes processing and disposal facility including land fills from the State Pollution Control Board in order to comply with the implementation schedule laid down in Schedule I. The municipal authority is required to comply with the implementation standards laid down in Schedule I. The municipal authority shall report in Form II to the Secretary in-charge of the Department of Urban Development in case of metropolitan city with a copy to the State Pollution Control Board on or before 30th June every year. As per Schedule I, Chennai Corporation should have implemented the setting up of waste processing and disposal facilities on or before 31/12/2003, monitoring the performance of waste processing and disposal facilities once in six months, improvement of existing landfill sites by 31/12/2001 and identification of existing landfill sites for future uses making sites ready for operation by 31/12/2000. Schedule III deals with specification of landfills. Standards have been prescribed for water quality monitoring, ambient air quality monitoring. Schedule IV deals with the standards for composting, treated leachate and incineration. The Chennai Corporation has not complied with most of the provisions of the MSW Rules, 2000.{Emphasis supplied by us}. A system has been put in place for providing infrastructure for collection, transfer, transportation and disposal of garbage through M/s. CES Onyx Ltd and now it is managed by the 2nd opposite party. The Chennai Corporation has carried out awareness through posters, NGOs and door to door campaign. The CMDA established a bio-methanisation plant at Nerkundram village, Tiruvallur District, behind Koyambedu Vegetable Market for generating power from vegetables and fruits wastes. The Chennai Corporation has built a three-metre high wall along the T.H.Road, the Southern boundary of Kodungaiyur dumpsite. The Chennai Corporation has earmarked an area of 200m x 300m within Kodungaiyur dumpsite to provide a mechanical composting plant. However, authorisation has not been issued as the compost plant has not been established. There is no scientific method of management of garbage at Kodungaiyur and Perungudi dumpsites. There are no proper internal access roads. Only truck drivers experienced in driving the trucks can manoeuvre the vehicles in the dump yard. The Chennai Corporation still continues to deploy open trucks covered with fish nets to collect, transport and dump garbage at the above said dumpsites.
Several notices were served on the Corporation. Several follow-up letters were also sent. But no further action was to be taken as there is a dire need to manage the city garbage with the prevailing system at the existing dump sites at Kodungaiyur and Perungudi. Any direction to completely stop the dumping and to close the dump sites will lead to accumulation of garbage dumps in the streets of Chennai resulting in unhygienic conditions that could cause outbreak of epidemics. This is evident when situation as mentioned above had arisen during the transition period when the 2nd opposite party took over from M/s. CES Onyx.
The 2nd opposite party is required to obtain authorisation only if it operates a municipal solid waste processing facility or a secure land fill. The Kodungaiyur and Perungudi dumpsites are mere dump yards where solid wastes are handled in an unscientific manner. The Chennai Corporation has not applied for authorisation to operate secured land fill at Kodungaiyur and at Perungudi. Proper directions may be issued to the Chennai Corporation to manage the municipal solid wastes in compliance with the various provisions of the Rules and to restructure the activities at Kodungaiyur and at Perungudi so as to meet the requirements of the Rules. Separate instructions may be given for taking steps for source segregation of garbage and to stop indiscriminate burning of garbage at various dumpsites including Kodungaiyur and Perungudi.
10. The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules 2000 became law on 25/9/2000. Several times deadlines were fixed for various things to be done, but they ware always missed. 31/12/2001 was fixed for improving the dump yards; 31/12/2002 was fixed for identifying new landfill sites; 31/12/2003 was fixed for adhering to the Rules. A Non-Governmental Organization viz., Community Environmental Monitorings [CEM] report reveals the presence of 5 toxic gases at Kodungaiyur. The fact finding report of CEM reveals the presence of 33 hazardous chemicals including 5 cancer causing substances at Kodungaiyur. Between 2002 and 2007 the budget allocation for improved solid waste management was Rs.48.85 Crores but the expenditure was only Rs.13.8 Crores, less than 30% of the allocation. Segregation of biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste is the most important step which the residents have to learn but are reluctant to learn. Awareness campaign is being contemplated by the Chennai Corporation. Bio-medical waste management is another sore point.
If segregation is not done, within two days organic matter will have acted on inorganic materials such as batteries and so it cannot be used for composting as the leachate may have contaminated the waste. Transfer of waste to garbage transfer stations is another sore point. Garbage lorries often have rubbish falling through the flimsy nets that are used to hold the contents in place.
Source segregation and scientific disposal is the mantra. We are told that animal carcasses are strewn all over Kodungaiyur dumping yard and the stench of biomedical waste stalks yards. [Courtesy: The Hindu dt 12/2/2008 Waste Management strewn with unkept promises].
11. It is rather unfortunate that the Opposite parties should raise the question on the maintainability of the complaint. Nobody can seriously dispute that the non-removal of garbage is a serious health hazard. The 2nd opposite party is the contractor engaged by the 1st opposite party. When the contractor is undoubtedly paid by the 1st opposite party from out of the taxes realised from the public of Chennai, the complaint, in our view, can without doubt, go before the Consumer Forum with the grievance that the opposite parties have failed to provide the service they are bound to give and that there is deficiency in service. We therefore reject the objection raised on behalf of the opposite parties and hold that the complaint is maintainable.
12. It is a fact that the contract with M/s.CES Onyx came to an end with 24/8/2007 and on and from 25/8/2007 the 2nd opposite party became the service provider.
It is seen from the records that after they lost out in the bid for collection of garbage in the city of Chennai, M/s.CES Onyx began to withdraw their men and material from the arena with the result that garbage began to accumulate and by the time the 2nd opposite party took over, there was a lot of accumulated garbage and the 2nd opposite party was just not prepared to handle the same. The 1st opposite party had also been slack in not keeping a watch when the previous contractor started withdrawing their men and removing the bins that had been placed by them at various vantage points in the city. It is rather strange that such withdrawal had not been taken notice of by the 1st opposite party and no stringent action was taken against the previous contractor M/s.CES Onyx for their removing their men and material well before the date of termination of their contract with the 1st opposite party. Further, the 1st opposite party should have also alerted the 2nd opposite party about what was happening and ensured that the 2nd opposite party were fully prepared to take over the clearance of garbage and had not been taken unawares. The inaction and indifference on the part of the 1st opposite party is inexcusable. Equally, the total unpreparedness on the part of the 2nd opposite party is unpardonable. As to what happened on account of the above ineptitude is elaborately brought out in the reports of the Advocate Commissioners, highlighted by the photographs and the extract of grievances aired by the citizens of Chennai. The opposite parties had claimed that they had cleared all the garbage by a particular date. But then, the complainant and the Advocate Commissioners have produced photographs clearly falsifying the tall claims made by the opposite parties.
13. The Advocate Commissioners had also invoked the provisions of the Right to Information Act and had called upon the opposite parties to provide them with data and documents. Only some of the items were furnished to the Advocate Commissioners. But according to the Advocate Commissioners, they were greatly handicapped as they could not do full justice to the task assigned to them.
14. About 25 snaps taken on 4/9/2007 have been produced by the complainant after the opposite parties had claimed that the garbage had been removed and that the streets were clean. From the photographs it is amply clear that what the opposite parties had claimed is not true. We are not giving the full details as recorded by the Advocate Commissioner Dr.V.Suresh in Zones 6 and 10. But we can extract some of the disturbing features that had been noticed by the learned Advocate Commissioners. Waste is not being collected regularly.
Hospital waste is being thrown around the bins provided and this constitutes serious health hazards. Most of the house maids are used to throwing the garbage in plastic covers in convenient spots they found. In Adambakkam there was a backlog for 10 days from 22/8/2007 to 4/9/2007 apart from the earlier backlog as M/s.CES Onyx started removing lesser amount of garbage daily. Trucks did not come regularly. Garbage is being collected from inner streets and dumped in street corners which are bigger from where the big lorries would collect it. But even if one part of this chain breaks down there are problems of garbage with those near garbage collections suffering bad odour and other inconvenience. Though Zone 6 is smaller in size, the population is dense being approximately 2.5 lakhs. There are 44 slums. The road length is 71 Kms. The generation of garbage is around 230 Tonnes per day. There are four major market places viz., Chintadripet, Zam Bazaar, Meer Sahib Market and Adam Market in this area. The officials informed that M/s.CES Onyx had around 7000 compactor bins in the area, whereas at the time of inspection on 14/9/2007 the 2nd opposite party had placed around 200. 10 lorries mini tippers had been hired along with 43 TATA Ace mini trucks for removal of garbage. Irregular and insufficient removal led to pile up of garbage. The area was covered by garbage and faeces were also lying in heaps around the garbage areas. In the fish market area, there was huge quantity of daily accumulation of fish which is removed only once every morning. Due to decaying nature of fish products, the stench was unbearable. In the area, at least 3 times collection is required. The unanimous comment was that for almost a week after M/s.CES Onyx ended their operations there was huge pile up which had been removed. Due to irregular and insufficient removal each time a vehicle crew came the accumulation which happened regularly and continuously meant that there was always a pile up.
15. From the foregoing, it would be clear that there was a total breakdown during the transition and both the opposite parties did not rise to the occasion and ensure that the garbage removal was done promptly and properly. As noted already, the claim made by the opposite parties has been found to be not true. Even today, we find many roads filled up with garbage and that too in a haphazard manner and needless to say that such an accumulation is a health hazard and it could trigger serious ailments and there could be outbreak of cholera, leptospirosis and other communicable diseases.
16. We are told that Guangzhou, China the economic powerhouse of South China and which has a population surpassing 10 million producing 5500 tons of urban refuse everyday has invested a total of 10 million yuan (US$1.2 million) in building a French-made modern refuse recycling centre in the suburbs which can dispose of 300 tons of solid waste everyday. Random littering seriously pollutes the air, rivers, lakes and underground water. To deal with this problem, household garbage is now collected and then compressed for landfills or for incinerating. So far, 40 percent of refuse in the city is disposed of, and the city intends to achieve complete disposal. Meanwhile, the local government is encouraging cooperation between the environmental sanitary department and scientific institutions for the development of advanced refuse disposal equipment. So far, a batch of advanced technology and equipment, such as airtight compressors and over water refuse dredging boats, have been developed and used widely.
17. Elsewhere, wastes from the kitchen, comprising vegetable cut-bits, fruit peelings, discarded pieces and shreds of vegetable or non-vegetable matter, and leftovers; paper towels, torn and crushed wiping sheets and tissues, and all kinds of stuff thrown into the waste baskets of other rooms which are meant for use as filling material are carried away for dumping in the approved areas. Yard garbage that includes all trash arising in the garden, such as dead leaves, withered twigs, pruned branches or clippings from plants, shrubs and hedges, mowed grass from lawn, and other types of garden rubbish goes into compost-making, and is delivered to farms. Recyclable items, consisting of a) plastic, such as milk cans, medicine or beverage bottles, and used containers, b) glass bottles and broken glass material, c) tin cans and sheet metal containers, d) old newspapers, printed paper, books, and sheets, and e) cardboard boxes, and paper cartons; Polythene carry-bags, wrappers, and PET containers and cans are generally handed over directly to the appropriate recycling centre by the resident.
18. In Yokohama, Japan, residents were previously allowed to take out garbage without first sorting it. The same bags contained food waste, bottles, cans, paper, apparel and even frying pans; all types of combustible and non-combustible refuse were jumbled together. Now segregation at source is being done.
19. In Chennai, every locality presents a picture of neglect with mounting heaps of uncleared garbage in the streets and a lackadaisical approach towards clean up operations.
20. From the counter of the 2nd opposite party it is seen that the officials of the 1st opposite party conducted classes for door to door collection and how to segregate the waste materials. Apart from educating the citizens on segregation of garbage, the 1st opposite party should ensure that the 2nd opposite party provided sufficient manpower, bins of proper size, compactors/trucks/vehicles etc. As per the reports of the Advocate Commissioners, the quantified requirement of waste bins for each zone is not met. This has to be done immediately. The number of compactors has to be considerably increased, as also the number of trucks and other vehicles. Chennai Corporation has to comply with the provisions of the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 2000.
21. In the light of the above discussion, we pass the following order:-
(1) The 1st opposite party shall ensure that the 2nd opposite party provided the required number in manpower, bins of adequate size, compactors, trucks/vehicles etc. so that all waste/ garbage is cleared everyday from the zones allotted to the 2nd opposite party ;
(2) The 1st opposite party shall manage the municipal solid wastes in compliance with the various provisions of the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 2000. Compliance has to be reported within a period of three months.
(3) The Advocate Commissioners are hereby requested to visit their allotted zones and file a status report on the present position regarding garbage removal within two weeks from today.
(4) The 1st opposite party shall pay to each of the Advocate Commissioners a sum of Rs.10,000/-
besides reimbursing the complainant the initial payment of Rs.10,000/- made by them.
(5) The 1st opposite party shall also pay to each of the Advocate Commissioners a sum of Rs.3, 000/- towards expenses incurred by them in their Commission work.
The Complaint is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
Pon.GUNASEKARAN K.SAMPATH MEMBER-I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO