HIGH COURT OF KERALA
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SANKARASUBBAN

And

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. DENESAN

OP.No. 14052 of 2003, 4^th September, 2003.

Sumith T.P

Versus

State of Kerala & Others

JUDGMENT

Denesan, J.

Petitioner is the Secretary of Janakeeya parisara Raksha Samithi, Moorikkovval – Edakkovval functioning at Moorikkovvai, within the limits of Payyannur Municipality.  He has filed this writ petition for and on behalf of himself and on behalf of the members of the general public in Moorikovval area.  Respondents 2 to 5 are respectively, Payyannur Municipality.  Its Chairperson, its Vice Chairman, and the Health Inspector.  Respondent No.6 is the District Collector, Kannur.  Respondent No. 7 is the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the 8th respondent its Environmental Engineer.  Additional respondents 9 to 19 got themselves impleaded stating that they are interested in the outcome of the writ petition.

1.     Petition has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 5 to refrain from dumping or burning materials in Moorikovval ground and for a further direction to prevent all types of pollution on account of the dumping or disposal of waste materials in Moorikovval ground.  The third prayer made in the writ petition is for a direction to the said respondents to take appropriate action for opening a scheme for de-centralized project for disposal of waste after identifying sufficient number of plots within and without the Municipality after proper notification.

2.     Payyannur Municipality started in Moorikovval a plant called Malinya Samskarana Kendram for the purpose of disposal of solid waste collected from the entire Municipality.  The plant is situated in a ground extending an area of more than 3 acres and 6 cents.  The solid waste from the entire Municipality would be brought to this ground to be converted into bio-fertilizers.  According to the petitioner, the experience of the local people would show that the Municipality has failed to dispose of solid waste in an eco-friendly manner or to prevent environmental pollution.  Petitioner would allege that the Malinya Samskarana Kendram in Moorikovval which started about a few months back has turned out to be a menace to the public living in that area, particularly residents in the close vicinity. According to him, waste from different hospitals, hostels, workshops, barber shops and residential houses in the entire Municipality and even areas outside the Municipality are brought to the above compound at Moorikovval and are dumped there.          

         These heaps of waste materials resemble tiny hills.  They include plastic items and rubber items like tyres and tubes.  Petitioner has alleged that even dead bodies from the hospitals including the Pariyaram Medical College were brought to the ground.  Often bones, flesh and other remnants of slaughter house wastes are carried by crows and dogs.  These waste materials ultimately reach the neighbouring wells.  Though certain sheds are constructed in the compound, they do not help the processing of garbage.  Waste.  materials brought to the ground are either simply deposited there or burnt in open air.  Pollution thus generated invited protest from the affected members of the public.  They submitted mass representations, issued lawyer notice, written complaints etc.  to the Municipality to stop the dumping and burning of waste.  Since no favourable response from the Municipal authorities was seen, certain members of the public resorted to agitation.  In the above background the office bearers of the Municipal Council invited the petitioner and some other activists of the Samithi for a discussion.  But nothing useful emerged from that discussion.  The petitioner would put the blame on the 4^th respondent who, it is alleged, exhibited a hostile attitude.  In this connection the petitioner has made certain other allegations also against the municipality and the office bearers.  However, we do not think that those are matters which require mention in detail for deciding the issues arising in this case.

3.     Petitioner has stated that it is quite possible to resolve the problem by imaginative implementation of waste management technics.  He would suggest that the Municipality should accept the idea of de-centralised procedure for management of the garbage, that is to say, to the extent possible, measures should be taken to dispose of the waste, right at the places where those are formed.  Instead of taking the entire waste from all parts of the Municipality and other places outside the Municipality to a single ground, steps should be taken to identify and notify sufficient number of places and grounds for the purpose of disposal of waste and for the purpose of conversion of the waste into bio-fertilizer.  The non de-composing materials like plastics should be separated.  Petitioner would submit that identification of sufficient number of proper places for disposal of the waste is a duty cast on the Municipalities by Section 331 of the Kerala Municipality Act, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ Identification of such places shall be done taking into account the environmental impact, human inhabitance, etc.  But respondents 2 to 5 have not made even an attempt to solve the problem in spite of the statutory provisions compelling them to do so.  Petitioner has referred to Section 326 of the Act which casts a duty on the Municipality to arrange for the removal of rubbish, solid and filth and to effectuate that purpose to provide (i) depots, receptacles and places for the deposit of filth, rubbish and the carcasses of animals.  He also refers to sub section (2) of the aforesaid provision which says that the Secretary shall find out adequate provision for preventing the depots, places, receptacles, dustbins, vehicles and vessels referred to in sub-section (1), from becoming sources of nuisance.

4.   The allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition have been denied by the 2^nd respondent in the detailed counter affidavit filed in this case.  The said counter affidavit shows that Moorikovval ground (extending 3 acres 6 cents) which is described in the village records as Moorikovval Nilam Nikathiya parambu comprised in R.S.  No. 10/3 in Payyannur Amsom in Ward Nos. 15 and 18 of the payyannur Municipality was used for the last more than 70 years for depositing waste materials collected from Payyannur town.  It was practically a non-residential area and remained as such for quite some time as it was used s a burial ground also.  However, in due course of time a few persons started living in the vicinity of the said ground.  Taking congnizance of the above fact, the Municipality took steps for scientific management of the waste.  The allegation of the petitioner that the Municipality started depositing solid waste materials in the above ground during the last five months is a misleading statement.  According to the Municipality what has taken place five months back is that the Municipality took steps for scientific disposal of solid waste already deposited in that area and being deposited.  The Municipality prepared a scheme for installing a plant for the above purpose.  The Municipality is going on with the effective management of the solid waste collected from the municipal area by putting the said plant into operation.  Hence there is no legitimate cause for the petitioner to approach this court.  The 2^nd respondent has denied the allegation that the Municipality is collecting waste from hospitals and that dead bodies from the hospitals including the Pariyaram Medical College are brought to the above ground.  It is averred in the counter affidavit that the Municipality is not collecting Waste from hospitals and that the private hospitals have got their own methods for managing the waste.  It is also averred in the counter affidavit that there are about 11 burial grounds adjacent to the Moorikovval ground including a public burial ground of the Municipality.  As regards the allegation that waste materials from the slaughter houses are brought to the ground, it is averred in the counter affidavit that the public slaughter houses have got their own arrangements for processing the waste.  The municipality has established a treatment plant in accordance with the directives issued by the Government in this regard and the vermicomposting is one of the methods suggested by the Government for the purpose of composting the waste.  According to the Municipality the waste generated form the town could be conveniently processed in the plant now established and therefore there is no necessity to adopt the de-centralised procedure for management of the garbage.  Having regard to the extent of the non-residential area required for disposal of waste materials, it is impossible, according to the Municipality, to find out sufficient number of places in and around the Municipality for disposal of the waste.  In this connection it is pertinent to refer to Ext. R2(c) produced along with counter affidavit of the Municipality.  It is the copy of the project report submitted by the public Health Forum as requested by the 2^nd Municipality for the scientific disposal of waste.  According to the Municipality, Ext. R2(c) is convincing proof to show that the Municipality was aware of the importance of timely removal of solid waste and disposal of the same in an eco-friendly manner and had taken effective steps in that direction even before the Government and the Director of Municipality issued orders or circulars in that behalf.  Ext. R2(c)which begins with the caption “Public Health Forum – Keep the town clean program” and “Municipal waste Disposal project For Payyanur Town” and with the sub-title ‘Introduction’ starts with the following paragraphs:

Disposal of municipal waste in Payyannur has been a long-standing problem.  At present, the waste collected from the town is just dumped in an open yard.  With the growth of the town, residences have sprung up in the vicinity of this dumping yard and the people living here are exposed to the health hazards posed by the decaying waste.  Finding a solution to the waste this disposal problem is therefore of urgent concerned in the interest of the health of the residents.  Moreover, successful implementation of a viable waste disposal scheme will also be a model for other towns to emulate.  Thus, there is an opportunity for payyannur to set an example for other towns.

The best method of disposal of urban waste is to turn it into a resource.  Proven technologies for making valuable organic manure out of biodegradable waste exist.  One can produce biogas by anaerobic digestion of the waste and obtain manure as a by product.  Technologies for accelerated digestion for larged-scale operations have been used in Western countries.  These technologies have not been tried in India and are not maintenance-free.  Passive technologies for producing biogas from farm or town waste have not been convincingly established in the field.  Vermicomposting of municipal waste, on the other hand, has been successfully done even in big cities like Mumbai and Bangalore.  The risk of failure of this method of disposal is therefore minimal.  We therefore suggest vermicomposting as the solution to the waste disposal problem of Payyannur.

The benefits from this are many in addition to providing a healthier environment.  A valuable saleable product in the form of vermicompost is obtained.  It provides employment to seven people.  Moreover, it helps spread awareness about public hygiene.

The contents of the report deal with composting as a viable and effective solution and the implementation of vermicomposting, cost estimation, responsibilities of the Municipality, monitoring and the necessity of awareness campaign also.  Ext. R2(c) concludes as follows:

 “Proper disposal of waste is an imperative in the interest of he health of the residents of the town.  The municipality anyway spends some money on collection of waste, but at present, it is not disposed of in a clean and safe manner.  Any clean and safe disposal of the waste should be undertaken regardless of the profitability of the operation.  In this case, since land is available with the municipality and a saleable product is obtained, the project is profitable.  It is therefore a good solution to the problem of urban waste.  Payyanur can show the way for other towns to follow.”

5. The 2^nd respondent-Municipality proudly says that it is the pioneer project in the state for scientific management and handling of solid waste in urban areas.  In the light of Ext.  R2(c)and having regard to the fact that vermicomposting plant has proved successful even in big cities like Mumbai and Bangalore, the 2^nd respondent entrusted the work of setting up of the vermicomposting plant to a public committee.  Ext. R2 (d) is the agreement entered into, in that behalf. Execution of the work thus undertaken was expedited and the construction of the plant was completed by September, 2002.  It is stated in the counter affidavit that the scheme was included in the peoples planning programme 2001-2002.  The counter affidavit further says that for proper implementation of the scheme, all the shops were given two bags for the collection of waste both bio-degradable and non bio-degradable after separation.  The Municipal workers would collect those bags from the shops and after bringing those waste as also the waste collected from the Municipal area, a process of segregation would be done in the ground in order to separate bio-degradable and non bio-degradable waste.  The segregated waste would be put in vermicomposting beds.  Seven workers were employed for the proper implementation of the scheme, that is, Collection, segregation, working of the plant etc.  Vehicles which bring the solid waste will unload the same in the ground and after segregation it would be put in the respective plants.  In the light of the fact that the method followed is as above, there is no question of dumping the waste in open area.  The convenor of the Committee which is entrusted with the work, has got the responsibility to monitor the day-today working of the plant.  The Municipality is having a health sector and an advisory committee consisting of Municipal Chairman, vice chairman, Health Inspector, three social workers of the area, Councillor of the ward, etc. for implementation of the scheme.  In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit it is stated that since the Convenor was not present in the station due to certain personal reasons, the plant could not be operated for about three days.  Immediately.  Steps were taken to make alternate arrangements.  It is alleged in the counter affidavit that certain persons under the instigation of the petitioner-Samithi entered the plants area and deliberately spread the waste materials in the ground in order to make the District Collector believe that wastes were dumped causing nuisance to the public, since the District Collector visited the place without notice to the Municipality, there was none to bring to his notice that the plant mentioned in Ext.  R2(c) already been constructed and disposal of waste is done by making use of the plant.  According to the Municipality, the plant did not function for a few days due to reasons beyond their control and the petitioner has taken advantage of that opportunity to see that the plant is stopped forever.

6.     It is seen from the statement filed by the 6^th respondent-District Collector before this court on 3-6-2003 that the processing of the waste was not done properly and that people residing nearby complained to the Collector that dumping of waste in the area has been causing much sufferings for them.  It was also stated that though the Municipality has constructed sheds for converting the waste into vermicomposting it was not functioning property.  The Collector therefore brought to the notice of the Municipality the necessity to comply with the provisions in the Municipal solid waste (Management and Bandling)  Rules, 1999, hereinafter referred to as the Waste Management Rules.  In this connection it would be relevant to recollect the statement of the 2^nd respondent-Municipality in its counter affidavit that the District Collector happened to file the statement on 3-6-2003 as he happened to visit the place in the peculiar circumstances mentioned therein.  Taking into account the request made by the counsel for the Municipality that the District Collector may be directed to make a second visit and to file a report after such inspection of the site, this court directed the District Collector, Kannur as per order dated 9-6-2003 to visit the site again with notice to the payyannur Municipality, the Health Inspector, the Environmental Engineer attached to the Pollution Control Board and the petitioner and to submit a further report on or before 17-6-2003.  In the second report thus submitted on behalf of the District Collector, he was stated inter alia as follows.

“While I have visited the site on 9-5-2003 as ordered by the Hon’ble High Court, it was found that an extent of about 25 cents of land was dumped with various types of garbage. But to day I could find no garbage on the dumping yard.  Six tanks for converting the garbage into vermicompost were found that garbage under process for being converted into vermicompost.   The Municipal authorities informed that the vermicompost plant could not function for some period due to the strike of employees engaged in the work.  The Secretary, Payyanur Municipality informed that they have tendered the work for construction of compound wall all around the dumping yard so as to prevent entry of stray animals and authorized dumping of waste in the dumping yard.  He has also informed that they propose to engage a full a time watcher in the tempting yard and engage more workers for converting the bio degradable waste in to vermicompost. He has also informed that Municipality has given bags to the collecting places where the Bio degradable and other wastes has to be separated and given in different bags.  Municipal authorities also informed that they have not burnt any waste within the dumping yard.  They have also placed dust bins at various places for collecting garbage.  The solid non degradable waste is being used for land filling as envisaged in the Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2000. The Municipality is taking all efforts to clear garbage daily and to avoid any kind of pollution and nuisance to the nearby dwellers.”

He has also stated that the present dumping yard was a burial ground where dead bodies were cremated for the last so many years and that the houses nearby were constructed only recently.  He has also referred to the remarks offered by the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board opining that if vermicomposting of bio-degradable waste is continued, the pollution problems arising from the dumping of waste can be minimized.  On the date of his second visit, the Collector did not see any garbage dumped in the open area.

7.       In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 7 and 8, which is sworn to by the Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Payyannur, it is stated that the area extending over 3 acres is not fully enclosed by compound wall and therefore stray dogs and other animals can freely enter the compound.  It is also submitted that the above place was used as waste dumping area for a long time.  The Environmental Engineer found that all types of wastes like polythene covers, rubber wastes, broken glasswares, vegetable wastes and hospital wastes were found dumped in an area of about 30-50 cents and no processing was found resorted to, by the Municipality.  The waste materials were found deposited in an area about 50 cents only, though the nearby residents complained that the entire area was used for dumping.  According to the pollution Control Board, processing of waste is not done in strict compliance of the rules mad in that behalf.  When he visited the place it was noticed that the vermicompost plant was not functioning.  It is also submitted that since residential houses and some other small institutions are existing in the neighborhood, any unscientific dumping of waste cancause environmental pollution and hardship to the nearby residents.  Regarding the suggestion of the petitioner put forth in the writ petition that the Municipality should identify 30-50 centres for the disposal of the waste, the counter affidavit of respondents 7 and 8 states that the said suggestion is not capable of being implemented since the rules governing the subject require several conditions to be satisfied and the Municipality will not be able to identify so many processing centers within the Municipality.  The Environmental Engineer is of the view that the arrangements already made for processing does not fully satisfy the statutory requirements nor the conditions necessary for scientific management of the waste materials.  The Municipality has applied for authorization as contemplated in the Waste Management Rules.  But is has yet to come forward with a solid proposal for waste processing facility.  Since the major content of waste materials is plastic which is not bio-degradable, those materials are to be segregated and as far as possible should be sent for recycling.  Items which cannot be recycled should be taken to land fill sites and for this purpose additional land area will have to be identified.  The counter affidavit of respondents 7 and 8 would suggest that the Municipality may have to acquire a large area extending to 10 acres in a remotely located place for the purpose of disposal of solid waste.

8. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner he has reiterated the statements made in the writ petition and has produced Ext.  P6 which is the copy of the plan of the Municipality containing the spots where the decentralized unit could be opened in the opinion of the petitioner.  Ext. P6 has been produced to meet the contention of the respondents that alternate places which would satisfy the requirement of the provisions contained in the waste Management Rules are not available within the Municipal area other than the one where the treatment plant is installed by the Municipality.

9.        We have heard at length the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Municipality.  Counsel appearing for the other respondents also put forward their respective contentions.

10.     Nobody disputes the fact that scientific disposal of solid waste has become a compelling necessity.  Learned counsel for the petitioner read out portions from the 5^th Edition of Environmental law’ by Stuart Bell and Donald Mc.  Gillivray to draw our attention to the waste management technics, being implemented and under consideration in the European countries.  Specific reference was made to the issue of soil pollution and identification of lands which have become ‘historically contaminated’ and the cleaning up of such lands having regard to the potential danger it causes to the health of the nearby inhabitants.  The learned authors say in Chapter Eighteen of the book at page 526 as Follows:

“Contamination is not necessarily identifiable on the basis of discrete geographical boundaries.  It may have migrated over long distances to contaminate areas other than the place where the contamination originated.”

The subject of contamination and pollution has been extensively dealt with by the authors.  The discussions are instructive and useful for solving the pollution problem which had become a menace endangering the healthy life of the inhabitants of this planet.  Respondents 1 to 7 have got the duty and responsibility to take upon themselves the task of implementing appropriate schemes suitable for the area concerned for disposal of waste.  The citizens have got the right to demand that the local authorities should implement the provisions contained in the Act as also the waste Management Rules.

11. The above Rules have been framed and published by the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 3(6) and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.  The provisions in the Rules are applicable to every Municipal authority responsible for collection, segregation, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste.  ‘Municipal solid waste’ includes commercial and residential waste generated in a municipal or notified area in either solid or semi-solid form excluding industrial hazardous waste but including treated bio-medical waste.  ‘Disposal’ as defined in Rule 3 (viii) of the waste Management Rules means final disposal of municipal solid wastes in terms of the specified measures to prevent contamination of ground water, surface water and ambient air quality.  ‘Recycling’ means the process of transforming segregated solid waste into raw materials for producing new products which may or may not be similar to the original products.  ‘Vermicomposting’ is a process of using earthworms for conversion of biodegradable waste into compost.  The word ‘transportation’ is also defined in Rule 3 of the Rules Transportation means conveyance of municipal solid waste from place to place hygienically through specially designed transport system so as to prevent foul odour, littering, unsightly conditions and accessibility to vectors.  The statutory provision which casts responsibility on the Municipal authority in this regard is Rule 4 which reads.

“4.  Responsibility of municipal authority.—(1) Every municipal authority shall, within the territorial area of the municipality, 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 wastes.

1.      The municipal authority or an operator of a facility shall make an application in Form-I, for grant of authorization for setting up, waste processing and disposal facility including landfills from the State Board or the Committee in order to comply with the implementation programme laid down in Schedule I.

2.      The municipal authority shall comply with these rules as per the implementation schedule laid down in Schedule I.

3.      The municipal authority shall furnish its annual report in Form II –

1.        to the Secretary-in-charge of the Department of Urban Development of the concerned State or as the case may be of the Union territory, in case of a metropolitan city; or

2.        to the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner concerned in case of all other towns and cities, with a copy to the State Board or the Committee on or before the 30^th day of June every year.”

12. Responsibilities are cast on the State Government as well as the Central pollution Control Board and the State Board/Committee.  Rule 5(2) says that the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District shall have the overall responsibility for the enforcement of the provision of the Rules within the territorial limits of their jurisdiction.

13. Rule 6 contemplates the grant of authorization by the State Pollution Control Board or the Committee for setting up waste processing and disposal facility including landfills.  The Municipal authority has to submit an application in Form No. 1 in this regard which application shall be considered and proper enquiries conducted by the State Pollution Control Board and thereafter necessary authorization in Form III issued to the Municipal authority stipulating compliance criteria and standards as specified under Schedules II, III and IV including such other conditions as may be required.  The authorization will be valid for a given period and after the expiry of that period, fresh authorization will be required.

14. Rule 7 of the aforesaid rules says that any municipal solid waste generated in a city or a town, shall be managed and handled in accordance with the compliance criteria and the procedure laid down in Schedule II.  The rule further says that the waste processing and disposal facilities to be set up by the municipal authority on their own or through an operator, shall meet the specifications and standards as specified in Schedules III and IV.  The rule contemplates filing of annual report by the State Boards to the Central Pollution Control Board and another report by the Central Pollution Control Board to the Central Government before the 15^th December every year.

15. A bird’s eye view of the provisions contained in the aforesaid rules and the various aspects covered by the schedule makes it clear that proper disposal of solid waste effectively and in an eco-friendly manner has become the statutory duty of the authorities mentioned therein, particularly the Municipal authority which has to take the initiative in this regard and effectively implement the same.  The very fact that the aforesaid rules have been framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, eloquently proclaims the object of the Rules.  It is a piece of subordinate legislation intended to prevent environmental pollution of land, water and air.

16. The State Legislature, in its wisdom, has incorporated certain provisions in the Kerala Municipality Act with a view to maintain pollution free atmosphere in the Municipalities.  Section 326 of the aforesaid Act mandates that the Municipality shall make adequate arrangements for the regular sweeping and cleansing of the streets and removal of sweepings cleaning of the streets and removal of sweepings there from, the daily remover of the filth and the carcasses of animals from private premises; the removal of solid wastes; and the daily remover of rubbish from dustbins and private premises. Section 327 of the Act says that it shall be incumbent on the owners of all premises to provide receptacle of a size to be specified by the Secretary for the purpose of storage of domestic waste, trade waste, institutional waste, dust ashes, refuse and rubbish generated from such premises.  The owners of the premises have also got the duty to keep clean such receptacles, and in good condition.  The Municipal Secretary has got the power to direct by public notice the owners or occupiers of all premises to segregate the waste, for easy collection and disposal of such waste by the employees and contractors engaged by the Municipality.  It shall also be incumbent on the owners and occupiers of all premises to cause all such waste to be collected from their respective places and to be deposited in the public receptacle, depot or place provided for the temporary deposit of waste.  But unfortunately none cares to comply with these provisions, may be due to ignorance of the duties imposed on them by law or due to sheer indifference and disrespect for law.  The authorities do nothing to awaken the citizens and make them observe these duties or to take punitive steps sanctioned by law.  Sections 328, 329 and 330 also deal with removal of rubbish or filth generated in the Municipal area.

17. Sub section (1) of Section 331 says that every Municipality shall identify and notify suitable lands within or without the municipal area for the purpose of final disposal of waste.  The other sub-sections would mandate that while notifying the land under sub-section (1), health and environmental aspects shall be taken into consideration by the Municipality; every Municipality may make adequate arrangements for the utilization of solid wastes for the preparation of compost and the disposal of it by sale; where composting of waste is not found possible or practicable, sanitary landfill methods shall be adopted by the Municipality for the disposal of waste at the landfill sites in the manner as may be specified by the Council and that incineration of waste may be resorted to by the Municipality for the disposal of infections waste generated from the hospitals, nursing homes or health care centers and the non-industrial hazardous waste as specified by the Council from time to time.  In this context it is relevant to note that separate Rules have been made for the management of hazardous wastes and also for hospital wastes.  Learned counsel for the petitioner laid much emphasis on the need to enforce the mandate of section 331.  According to him the importance of this section cannot be lost sight of by the Municipalities, because, without complying with section 331 of the Act, proper results will not be achieved in the matter of disposal of municipal waste.  We are of the view that the learned counsel is perfectly right in his submission.

18. Section 332 of the Act is also relevant in this context.  It reads as follows:

Provision for processing of solid wastes.The Municipality may, for the purpose of recycling, treating processing and disposing of solid wastes or converting such solid wastes into compost or any other matter construct, acquire, operate, maintain and manage any establishment within or without the Municipal area and run it on a commercial basis or may contract out such activity.

19. It is true that the 2^nd respondent-Municipality addressed itself to the vital problem of solid waste management and disposal and that it was instrumental in getting Ext.  R2(c) project report.  We also notice that the 2^nd respondent took steps to construct a plant for converting the waste brought from various places in the Municipality to Vermicompost.  These are definitely positive steps taken by the Municipality to tackle the problem of disposal of municipal waste.  However, from the statements contained in the counter affidavit of respondents 7 and 8 it appears that the measures taken by the Municipality are not fully satisfactory and that it has to go a long way to legitimately claim that it is doing things as enjoined by the statutory provisions.

20. Schedule I mentioned in Rule 4(2) of the Rules ought to have been done 31-12-2001, which is the last date fixed for identification of landfill sites for future use.  Date fixed for making site(s) ready for operation was 31-12-2002.  Setting up of waste processing and disposal facilities are to be completed by 31-12-2003.  It is the responsibility of the municipal authority or an operator of a facility to submit an application in Form-I for obtaining grant of authorization for setting up, waste processing and disposal facility including landfills from the State Board or the Committee so as to comply with the implementations programme envisaged in Schedule I.  In this connection the requirements insisted in Schedule III in the matter of site selection and specifications for landfill sites are also important.

21. It is the responsibility of the Central Pollution Control Board and the State Board or the Committee to monitor the working of the system and ensure due compliance of the standards regarding ground water, ambient air, leachate quality and the compost quality including incineration standards as specified under Schedules II, III and IV.  It is equally important to comply with the requirements in Rule 6 of the Rules, particularly, the authorization to be issued by the State Board or the Committee in Form-III.  What is seen from the counter affidavit of respondent No. 7 is that though the municipality has applied for authorization, no concrete proposal for waste processing facility was submitted.  We therefore direct that the 2^nd respondent-Municipality shall immediately cure the defects and furnish all relevant materials for getting approval as per the waste Management Rules.  We must say that it will not be satisfactory compliance of the provisions of the kerala Municipality Act and the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management  & Handling) Rules to install a plant for the purpose of vermin-composting of solid waste collected from the municipal area unless the said plant conforms to the requirements mentioned in Schedule II as also the specifications and standards mentioned in Schedules III and IV of the said Rules.  Though the 2^nd respondent-Municipality has taken some steps for the purpose of disposal of solid waste in its attempt to see that the municipal waste is scientifically managed, it is only reasonable to infer that the present set up, is inadequate to solve the problem effectively.  It is, in this context, the necessity to comply with Section 331 of the Municipality Act arises.

22. Decentralization of the disposal of solid waste in the urban areas, though theoretically a good idea, may not be practically possible, for want of suitable sites in cities and municipal areas.  However, alternate sites should be found out sufficiently in advance so as to implement the mandate of Section 331 of the Municipality Act.

23. Petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 5 to refrain from dumping or burning waste materials in Moorikkovval ground and for a further direction to prevent all types of pollution on account of the dumping or disposal of waste materials in Moorikkovval ground.  The Municipality, in its counter affidavit, has stated that there is no dumping or burning of waste materials in Moorikkovval ground.  This statement of the Municipality is recorded.  The 2^nd respondent shall adhere to the above statement.

24. The scheme of the waste Management Rules is such that by effective implementation of the directives in the manner suggested therein, pollution from solid waste, garbage etc.  Will be minimized substantially.  Needless to say that it shall be the duty and responsibility of all the respondents to carry out the mandate of the provisions of the Act and the waste Management Rules.

25. We dispose of this writ petition issuing the following directions:

1.     Respondents 7 and 8 shall conduct necessary inspections at the site where the vermicomposting plant is constructed by the 2^nd respondent Municipality and take appropriate action to ensure effective functioning of that plant.  They shall also conduct inspections within the municipal area for carrying out the duties entrusted with them by the Act and the Rules aforesaid.

The 2^nd respondent shall take all necessary action for implementing the provisions of the Act for the purpose of disposal of solid waste and in particular to see that (a) the vermicomposting plant referred to in Ext.  R2(c) functions effectively and uninterruptedly (b) non-biodegradable waste is segragated and sent, as far as possible, for recycling (c) waste that cannot be recycled is removed to landfill sites fulfilling the requirements of schedule III of the aforesaid Rules and (d) due compliance of Section 331 of the Act as expeditiously as possible.