Holding

The Court held that the municipal and statutory authorities must comply with both the earlier and newly issued directions, and it issued specific, time‑bound orders to ensure proper solid waste management in Delhi.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained a writ petition under Article 32 seeking effective solid waste management in Delhi, noting that earlier directions in Dr. B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India had not been implemented. The Court observed that no landfill sites had been identified, compost plants were not constructed, and daily street cleaning was inadequate, reflecting non‑compliance by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, NDMC and other authorities. It held that the statutory provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 and the Cantonments Act, 1924 must be scrupulously observed and that the authorities must levy charges for littering. The Court issued a series of time‑bound directions, including identification of landfill sites within four weeks, provision of eight compost‑plant sites, daily cleaning of streets and public places, publication of sanitation officers' contacts, and appointment of executive magistrates under CPC sections 20 and 21. All concerned authorities were directed to file compliance reports within eight weeks, and the Court warned that violation of its directions would be taken seriously. The petition remains pending for compliance.

Issues considered

The extent of non‑compliance with the directions issued in Dr. B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India regarding solid waste management in Delhi.
Whether the Supreme Court can issue further specific directions under Article 32 to enforce statutory provisions relating to sanitation and public health.
Whether the authorities can be compelled to levy charges for littering and to appoint executive magistrates under CPC sections 20 and 21.
The appropriate time‑frames and mechanisms for identification of landfill sites and establishment of compost plants.

Legislation cited

Subjects

solid waste managementDelhienvironmental lawpublic healthmunicipal corporationlandfillcompost plantArticle 32writ petitionCode of Criminal Procedure

Judgment

ALMITRA H. PATEL AND ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA

FEBRUARY 15, 2000

[RN. KIRPAL, M.B. SHAH AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.]
B

Constitution of India-Article 32-Writ Petition-Management and
handling of solid waste disposal in Delhi-Non compliance of directions is-
sued by the Supreme Court in Dr. B.L. Wadhera's case-Other appropriate
directions issued which are in addition to those issued earlier-Environmental c
pollution.

This writ petition was filed to consider the question of solid waste
disposal for a cleaner Delhi. Despite orders having been passed in Dr. B.L.
Wadltera v. Union of India, [1996) 2 SCC 594, sufficient number of sites
for landfills have neither been identified nor handed over to MCD nor have D
four additional compost plant been constructed.

Disposing of the matter by issuing directions, this Court

HELD : The following directions are issued in addition and not in E
derogation of the orders passed by this Court in Dr. B.L. Wadhera's case :
[851-D)

1. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi through the Commissioner,
NDMC, through its Chairman and the Cantonment Board through its
Executive Officer and all other concerned officials including Sanitation F
Superintendents/Chief Sanitary Inspectors/Sanitary Inspectors/Assistant
Sanitary Inspectors/Sanitary Guides/Medical Officers to ensure that the
relevant provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, New
Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 and the Cantonments Act, 1924 relating
to sanitation and public health prohibiting accumulation of any rubbish, G
filth, garbage or other polluted obnoxious matters in any premises and/or
prohibiting any person from deposition the same in any street or public
place shall be scrupulously complied. [851-E-F]

2. The streets, public premises such as parks etc. shall be surface
cleaned on daily basis, including on Sundays and public holidays. [851-G] H
841
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) 1 S.C.R.
A 3. The MCD, NDMC and other statutory authorities through com-
petent officers, as may be designated by them, (but not lower than in the rank
of Sanitary Superintendent or equivalent post) to levy and recover charges
and costs from any person littering or violating provisions of the diverse
Acts, bye-laws and Regulations rdating to sanitation and health for violat-
ing the directions being issued herein. For this purpose the Commissioner,
B MCD, Chairman, NDMC and other concerned heads of sanitary authorities
will prepare and publish for the information of public at large scale of such
charges/costs as may be levied and recovered in respect of the diverse acts of
commission/omission. The charges/costs will be recovered on the spot by
such designated officers from any person found littering or throwing rub-
C bish and causing nuisance so as to affect sanitation and public health. The
Commissioner, MCD and Chairman, NDMC and other authorities may
frame and publish such schemes as may be necessary to ensure compliance
of these directions forthwith. Tiii the scheme is framed and published, the
authorities named above would recover Rs. 50 as charges and costs from any
person littering or violating provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act,
D Bye-laws and Regulations relating to sanitation and health. This part be
published and implement at the earlier through concerned Sanitary Inspec-
tors. [851-H; 852-A-E]

4. The MCD through the Commissioner, NDMC through its Chair-
man and other sanitary authorities through their respective heads to
E ensure proper and scientific disposal of wastes in a manner so as to
,
subserve the common good. In this connection they shall comply with the
suggestions and directions contained in the report prepared by the Asim
Burmon Committee. [852-F]

p 5. Sites for land fills will be identified bearing in mind the require-
ment of Delhi for the next twenty years within a period of four weeks from
today by the exercise jointly conducted by the t:nion of Indian through the
Ministry of Urban Development, Government of National Capital Ter-
ritory of Delhi, Commissioner, MCD and Chairman, NDMC and other
heads of statutory authorities like the DDA etc. These sites will be iden-
G tified keeping in mind the environmental considerations and in identifying
the same Central Pollution Control Board's advice will be taken into
consideration. The sites so identified shall be handed over to the MCD
and/or NDMC within two weeks of the identification, free from all en-
cumbrances and without MCD or NDMC having to make any payment in
H respect thereof. [852-G-H; 853-A]
ALMITRAH.PATELv U.O.L 843

6. Union of India through the Ministry of Urban Development, A
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Commissioner of
MCD, Chairman NDMC and other statutory authorities like DDA and
Railways to take appropriate steps for preventing any fresh encroachment
or unauthorised occupation of public land for the purpose of dwelling
resulting in creation of a slum. Further appropriate steps be taken to
B
improve the sanitation in the existing slums till they are removed and the
land reclaimed. (853-C]

7. Union of India through Ministry of Urban Development, Govern-
ment of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Commissioner, MCD, Chair-
man, NDMC and other statutory authorities like DDA etc. to identify and c
make available from today sites for setting np compost plants. Initially
considering the extent of solid waste, which is required ti! be treated by
compost plants, the number of sites which should be made available will
be eight. Such sites should be handed over to the MCD/NDMC free of cost
and free from all encumbrances within two weeks of identification. MCD
and NDMC shall thereupon take appropriate steps to have the compost D
plants/processing plants established or caused to be established and to be
in operation by 30th September, 2000. (853-D-F]

8. The MCD, NDMC and other statutory authorities concerned with
sanitation and public health to regularly publish the names of concerned E
Superintendents of Sanitation and such equivalent officers who are
responsible for cleaning Delhi, who can be approached for any complaint/
grievance by the citizens of Delhi together with their latest office and
residential telephone numbers and addresses. (853-G-H]

9. The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to appoint F
Magistrates under Section 20 and/or Magistrates under Section 21 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for each Board/Circle/Ward for ensuring
compliance of the provisions of the MCD and NDMC Acts and to try the
offences specified therefor in relation to littering and causing nuisance,
sanitation and public health. These appointments shall be made within a G
period of six weeks from today in conformity with this order. (854-A-B]

10. All the concerned authorities will file compliance reports of these
directions within eight weeks from today. The Central Pollution Control
Board will also file within the same time an allidavit indicating as to what
extent the directions issued have been complied with. The violation of the H
844 SCPREMF COl:RT REPORTS [2000] l S.C.R.
A directions issued by this Court shall be viewed seriously. [854-C-D]
Dr. B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India, (1996] 2 SCC 594, relied on.

CIVIL ORIGI'.'l"AL Jt:RISDICTIO:>. : Writ Petition (C) No. 888 of
1996.
B
Under Article 32 of the Constitutinn of India.

Altaf Ahmed, Dr. AM. Singhvi, M.S. Usgaonkar, Additional
Solicitor Generals, Dushyant Dave, R. Mohan, T.C.. Roy, Bhimrao N. Naik,
P.N. Misra, Arun Jaitley, A. Raghvir, P.P. :Vtalhotra, Joseph Vellapally,
C N.N. Goswami, Anil B. Diwan, (M~. Jayshr'-'e Anand, Sushi! Kumar Jain)
Additional Advocates Generals, Ms. Ruby S. Ahuja, R.N. Karanjawala,
Gourab Banerjt_e, Siddarth D<.ve, Haris Betran, :Vis. Manik Karanjawala,
A.D.N. Rao, B.V. Balramdas, Ms. Shashi K.iran, S. Wasim A. Qadri, S.K.
Dwivcdi, Ms. Anil Katiyar, V.G. Pragasam, Sunil K Jain, Vijay Hansaria,
D S. Barhakur, Yashank Adhyaru, Satish K Agnihotri, Sakesh Kumar, V.
Krishnamurthy A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, S.N. Bhat, Kailash
Vasdev, Satvik Verma, Mahabir Singh, K.H. ~obin Singh, Gopal Singh, Ms.
Anu Sawhney, Ms. H. Wahi, Anil Srivastav, Ms. A. Subhashini, S.K. Mehta,
Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha, Ms. Geeta Luthra, :'.ls. Pinky Anand, D.N.
Goburdhun, Ms. Shashi Kiran, D.S. Mehra, Vijay Panjwani, Bijan Ghosh,
E L.C. Agarwala, D.N. Mishra, Pallav Shishodia, B.A. Ranganadhan, E.C.
Vidya Sagar, B.K. Choudhary, Pradcocp Misra, H.S. Parihar, K.S. Parihar,
r
M.N. Shroff, Chiag M. Shroff, Ranjan Mukherjee, K.B. Rohtagi, Ms.
Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Mahesh Kasana, G. Sivabalamurugan, Rajiv Dutta,
V.B. Joshi, S.S. Shinde, G.B. Sathe, Narcsh K. Sharma, G. Parkash, Ms.
F Beena Prakash, Ms. Rahana V.M., V.G. Pragasam, M.A. Chinnaswamy,
R.K. Maheshwari, K.R. Nagarja, K.K. Tyagi, Ms. Shalini Bhalla, Ms. Ab-
hilasha, Rajcsh Singh, B.B. Singh, K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Santinarayan, Y.
Subba Rao, B. Sridhar, Ms. Asha G. Nair Ms. Kirti Mishra, J.K. Das, A.
Mishra, Ms. Anjali Doshi, Briji.:nder Chahar, Ms. Jyoti Chahar, Ashok
Mathur, H.K. Puri, S.K. Puri, Rajesh Srivastava, U.ijwal Banerjee, Ms.
G Urmila Sirur, V.B. Saharya, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Ashok K. Srivastava, S.C.
Patel, Bharat Sangal, Rakesh U. Upadhyay, K.S. Bhati, K.K. Rai, Shiv
Sagar Tiwari, Vijay Hansaria, A.P. Jain, Gargi Khanna, B.R. Patti, Ajay Kr
Gupta, Ms. V.D Khanna, Ms. Nirmala Gupta, Fazlin Anam Mahabir
Singh, Ms. Yogmaya, R. Rahim, :Yls. Farha Sultana, Y.P. Mahajan, :Yls.
H Anil Katiyar, P. Parmi.:shwaran, Gyanendra Agarwal, S. Bhaumicx, Ms.
ALMITRAH. PATEL v. U.0.1. ;KIRPAL, J.j 845

c• Ncithono Rhetro, Ms. Niti Dikshit, T. Mahipal, C.K. Sasi, Z. Angami, V.K. A
Verma, M.P. Shorawala, S.A. Mattoo, Ms. Sumit Hazarika, J.S. Manhad,
. Pra~hant G. Desai, Kerban Ankleshwar, Ms. S. Janan~ E.C. Vidya Sagar,
J.S. Attri, T. Harish Kumar, Arvind Kumar, H.M. Singh, R.S. Suri, Shakil
Ahmed Syed, L.R. Rath, Ms. Neetu Singh and M.P. Shorawla for the
appearing parties.
B
The following Judgment of the Court was delivi.:n:d :

KIRPAL, J. More in anguish, than out of anger, this Court nearly
four years ago in Dr. B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India and Ors., (19961 2
SCC 594 at 595 observed : "Historic city of Delhi - the capital of India - is C
one o f the most polluted cities in the world. The authorities, responsible fur
pollution control and environment protection, have not been able tu provide
clean and healthy environment to the residents of Delhi. The ambient air is
so much polluted that it is difficult to breath. More and more Delhities are
suffering from respiratory diseases and throat infections. River Yamuna · the D
main source of drinking water supply - is the free dumping place for untreated
sewage and industrial waste. Apan from air and water pollution, the city is
vinually an open dustbin. Garbage strewn all over Delhi is a common sight.
17ie Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the MCD) constituted under the Ddhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (Delhi Act) and the New Delhi !vfunicipal
Council (the NDMC) constituted under the New Delhi Municipal Council E
Act, 1994 (New Delhi Act) are wholly remiss in the discharge of their duties
under law. It is no doubt co"ect that rapid industrial development, ur-
banisaton and regular flow of persons from rural to urban areas have made
major contribution towards environmental degradation but at the same time
the authorities - entrusted with the work of pollution control - cannot be
F
pemiitted to sit back with f aided hands on the pretext that they have no
financial or other means to control pollution and protect the environment."
The Court then proceeded to issue 14 directions in an effort to see that
the capital of the biggest democracy in the world is not branded as being
one of the most polluted cities in the world.
G
It is indet:d unfortunate that despite more than sufficient time having
elapsed the condition of Ddhi has not improved. The citizens of Delhi,
increasingly suffor from respiratory and other diseases, the river Yamuna
is highly polluted and garbage and untn:ated domestic and industrial waste
is being either fn:dy dumped into tht: said river or is left on open land, H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.
A large volume of which remains unattended.
The pn:sent writ petition is concerned with the qm:stion of solid
waste disposal. By ordt:r datt:d 16th January, 1998 this Court constituted a
Committee hcaded by Mr. A>im Burmon to look into all aspects of urban
solid waste managemcnt and in particular to the following four areas :
B
"1. Examine the existing practices and to suggest hygienic process-
ing and waste disposal practices and proven technologies on the
basis of economic feasibility and safety which the Corpora-
tions/Govc:mment may directly or indirectly adopt or sponsor.

c 2. Examine and suggest ways to improve condition in the formal
and informal sector for promoting eco-friendly sorting, collection,
transportation, disposal, n:cycling and reuse.

3. To revit::w Municipal bye-laws and the powers of local bodies
and n:gional planning authorities and suggest necessary modifica-
D
tions to ensure effoctivc budgeting, financing, administration,
monitoring and compliance.

4. Examine and formulate standards and regulations for manage-
ment of urban solid waste, and set time frame within which the
E authorities shall be bound to implement the same."

After a preliminary and then the final report of the said Committee
was received, notices were issued to all the States who were required to
file their responses to the report of the Committee. None of the States
really opposed the recommendations made by the Committee and it is
F noticed that fine responses of the States were in fact positive. Keeping the
aforesaid report in mind, Managcmc:nt of Municipal Solid Waste (Manage-
ment and Handling) Rules 1999 were notified by the Central Government
which, as the heading itself suggests, deals with the question as to how the
solid waste in the cities is to be managed and handled.
G
In this Court's order dated 15th October, 1999 it was indicated that
we proposed to take up the question of cleaning of four metropolitan cities,
namely, Mumbai, Chennai, Calcutta and Ddhi as also the city of Ban-
galore.

H We have first heard counsel appearing on behalf of the National
Al MITRA H. PATEL v. U.O.l. [KIRPAL, J.] 847
Capital Territory of Delhi in connection with the management and han- A
dling of the sold waste. It was in this connection that our attention was
drawn to the 14 directions issued by this Court in Dr. B.L. Wadhera's case
(supra). It .is indeed unfortunate that till today the said directions have not
been complied with. When this was put to the learned counsel appearing
for Ddhi as to why the said directions were not complied with, there was,
in effect, no satisfactory answer. For example, sites for landfill have not
B
been idmtified and handed over to the MCD nor have four additional
compost plants been constructed though specific direction in this regard
was issued in Dr. B.L. Wadhera's case. The Court also approved of the
experimental scheme placed before it by the MCD where-under certain
Localities had been selected for distribution of polythene bags and collcc- c
> tion of garbage from door to door but no effective progress appears to have
been made in this regard. These are but a few examples which show
non-compliancc of thc directions issued.

We are not oblivious of the fact that in a large city like Delhi where
the floating populat10n which comes in every day is not very small, keeping D
the city clear is indeed a daunting task. Just because the work involved is
difficult cannot be a reason for lack of initiative or inaction on the part of
the authorities concerned.

We are informed that one of the local authorities, namely, MCD E
itself employ about forty thousand safai karamcharis. This is in addition to
> the staff employed by other local bodies, namely the NDMC and the
Cantonment Board. Likt: all government and municipal employees these
karamcharis an: expected to work for the stipulated period of time, namdy,
eight hours a day. It was submitted by Mr. Dushyant Dave, learnedAmicus
Curiae that the insanitary conditions of different areas of Delhi does not F
in any way show that requisite effort has been put in or the required time
spent in the cleaning operations which are supposed to be carried out by
this large workforce. These employees are more invisible than visible.
·There appears to be a complete lack of accountability, at all levels of the
Corporation, in this behalf. G

Kt:eping Delhi clean is not an easy task but then it is not an impos-
sibk one either. What is required is initiative, selfless zeal and dedication
and professional pride, dements which are sadly Lacking here.

Surat had for time immemorial been known to be one of the dirtiest H
848 SVPREMFCOl'.RTREPORTS [2000) 1 S.C.R.
A cities in the country. Tht: plague there in L995 was the result of the filth
which had accumulated therein. Nevuthckss the effort of cme man, name-
ly, the Municipal Commi~sioner, who worked in the fidd and in the office
with dedication resulted in not only aadicating the plague and cleaning up
Surat but gave the city of Suat the distinction of being the second most
B clean city in the whole of lnjia. The people of Surat who threw garbage
all around wae so affoct~d by the tirekss effort of one person that they
themselves have now become zealous guardians of their new found clean
city of Surat. This shows what one man as a head of the organisation, like
Municipal Corporation, with selfless zeal, initiative and dedication and
without allowing any outside interforence can achieve by motivating his
C employees to clean up the city while acting fairly, justly and efficiently
within the four corners of the law.

In Delhi, which is the capital of the country and which should be its
show piece, no effecfoe initiative of any kind has been taken by the
numerous gowrnmental agencies operating here in clearing up the city. As
D a result thereof the Court had in D1: 8.L. Wadhera's case, per force, to step
in because of the non-performance or non-impkmcntation of the law by
the municipal authorities. The law, inter alia, makes it obligatory on them
to discharge th..:ir municipal functions and at least prevent filth and garbage
from lying strewn at different public places causing hazard to public health.
E
The local authorities are constituted for providing servict:s tu the
citizens - not merely to proVIde employment to a few of its inhabitants.
Tolerating filth, while not taking action against the lethargic and im:fficient
workforce for fear of annoying them, is un-understandable and
imperrnis~ible. Non-accountability has possibly let to lack to effort on the
F part of the employees concernt:d. They are perhaps sanguine in their belief
that non-performanci.: is not frowned upon by the Government or by the
heads of the organisiitions and no harm will befall them.

Domestic garbage and sewage is a large contributor of solid waste.
G The drainage system in a city is intended to cope and deal with household
effluent. This is so in a planned city. But when a large number of in-
habitants live in unauthorised colonies, with no proper means of dealing
with the domestic effluents, or in slums with no care for hygiene the
problem hecomes more complex.

H Establishment or creating of slums, it seems, appears to be good
ALMITRAH. PATELv. l~.u.r. [KIRPAL,J.] 849

business and is well organist:d. Thi: numbt:r of slums has multiplit:d in the A
last few yi:ars by geometrical proportrnn. Large areas of public land, in this
way, an: usurped for private use fn:e of cost. It is difficult to belii::ve that
this can happen in the capital of the country without passive or active
connivance of the land owning agencies and/or the municipal authorities.
The promise of free land, at the taxpayers' cost, in place of a jhuggi, is a
proposal which attracts more land grabbers. Rewarding an encroacht:r on
B
public land with fn;e alternate site is like giving a n:ward to a pickpocket.
The dt:partment of slum clearance docs not seem to have cleared any slum
despite it's being in existence for decad1:s. In fact more and more slums arc
coming into existence. Instead of 'Slum Clearance' there is 'Slum Creation' in
Ddhi. This in turn gives rise tu domestic wa~te being strewn on open land in c
and around the slums. This can best be controlled at kast, in the first instance,
by pn:venting the growth of slums. The authorities must realise that there L\ a
limit to which the population of a city c<m be increased, without enlarging it's
size. In other words the density of population per square kilometer cannot
be allowed to increase beyond the sustainable limit. Crt:ation of slums resulting D
in incrt:ast: in density has to be prevented. What the slum clearance depart-
ment has to show, however, docs not seem to be visible. It is the garbage and
solid waste generated by these slums which require to be dealt with most
expeditiously and on the basis of priority

It was suggested by the learned Amicu.r Curiae that we should issue E
various directions to the MCD and the NDMC including din:ction relating
to the manner in which the waste generated in Delhi is to be handled. We
believe it is not for this Court to direct as to how the municipal dUthoriti<:s
should carry out their fundinns and r<:>uhc l.!ifficulties in rtgard to the
management of solid waste. The Court, in fact, is 111 equipped to do >O.
F
Without doubt the Government agencies including the local authorities
have all the powers of the State to take action and ensure that the city
remains clean. They have only to wake up and act. The Court should,
however, direct that the local authorities, Government and all statutory
authorities must discharge their statutory duties and obligations in keeping
the city at last reasonably clean. We propose to do so now by issuing G
appropriate directions.

Before we pass the necessary orders some difficulties are stated to
have been encountered in imph:menting some of the directions in Dr. B.L.
Wadhera's case (supra) which need to be dealt with. H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R.
A One of the difficulties pointed out before us was that even though
the MCD and the ~DMC Acts permit action being taken, inter a/ia, against
persons who :itter the city, sufficii;;nt number of judicial magistrates are not
available for ensuring proper enforcemrnt of the provisions of the said
Acts. But the shortage of judicial magistrates can be easily overcome by
the Government appointing suitable persons ilS Executi\'e Magistrates
B under Section 20 or Sptcial Executive Magistrate under S1:ction 21 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure who can b..: empuwcrtd tu di:al with such
minor offences under the provisions uf the MCD and NDMC Act. There
are large numbt:r of retired guvt:rnment olfo:ials and i:x-defenct: officers
who have hdd responsible posts and art living in Delhi who, we an: sure,
C will bt: willing to act as such Magistrates. Ddhi is divided into a number
of Municipal wards and for every ward one or more Executive Magistrate
or Special Executive Magistrate can easily be appointed. This will also take
some burden of the Courts.
i

D The counsel for the MCD has submitted that despite orders having
been passed in Dr. B.L. Wadhera's case (supra) sufficient number of sites
for landfills have neither been identifitd nor handi;;d mu to it. One of the
reasons for the sites not being made available, it was stated, was that land
owning agencies like the DDA or the Government of :--lational Capital
Territory of Delhi are demanding market value of tht: land of more than
E rupees forty lacs per acre before the land can be transferred to MCD.
Keeping Delhi clean is a governmental function. Then: are more than one
agencies that administer Delhi, namdy, LI nion of India through Ministry
of Urban Developmtnt, (iuvernment of ~atiunal Capital Territory of
Delhi, Commissior1.:r of MCD, Chairman. '.';OMC, Canhmment B0ard and
F the DOA. It is thi:: duty of all concerned tu ;ee that landfill :.iks are
provided in the int..:rest of public health, Providing of landfill sites i5 not a
commercial venture, which 1s being undertaken by the MCD. It is as much
the duty of the MCD as that of other authorities enumerat.:d above to see
that sufficient sitt:s for landfills to mt:t:l tht: requirnmi;;nt of Ddhi for next
twenty years are provided. Not prmiding th.: same bi;;cause the MCD is
G unable to pay an 1:;xorbitant amount is un.. understandable. Landfill site has
to be provided and it is wholly immaterial which Governmt:ntal agency or
the local authority has to pay the price for it. As for ni;;arly four years since
the direction was issued in Dr. B.L. Wadhera's case (supra) this problem
has not been solved. It has now become necessary for this Court to issui;;
H appropriate directions in this behalf, which we shall presently do.
ALMITRAH. PATEL v. U.0.1. [KIRPAL,J.] 851

One of the important directions issued in Dr. B.L. Wadhera's case A
was regarding the construction of compost plants. In addition to the compost
plant at 0 khla, which was expected to be in operation by 1st June, 1996, four
additional compost plants were to be constructed, as recommended by Jag-
mohan Committee. This has not happened and t:Ven land for sufficient number
of compost plants has not been identified or handed over. It has, therefore,
B
become necessary to issue time-bound directions in this behalf.

Uptill now no action has been taken against people who spread litter.
Discipline amongst pc:ople in this behalf has to be inculcated and the guilty
punished. Appropriate orders in this behalf are proposed to be issued
including the appointment of Magistrates under Section 20 and/or Section c
21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia, to deal with such cases.

CONCLUSIONS :

In addition to and not in derogation of the ordtrs passed by this
Court in Dr. B.L. Wadhera's case (supra), we order as follows : D

1. We direct the Municipal Corporation of Delhi through the
Commissioner, NDMC through its Chairman and the Can-
tonment Board through its Executive Officer and all other
concerned officials including Sanitation Superinten-
dents/Chid Sanitary Inspectors/Sanitary Inspectors/Assistant
E
Sanitary Inspectors/Sanitary Guides/Medical Officers to en-
sure that the relevant provisions of the MCD Act, 1957, New
Ddhi Municipal Council Act. 1'194 and the C'autonmcnto Act,
1924 relating to ~anitation and public health prohibiting ac-
cumulation of any rubbish, filth, garbage or other polluted F
obnoxious matters in any pn:mises and/or prohibiting any
person from depositing the same in any street or public place
shall be scrupulously complied.

' 2. We direct that the street, public premises such as parks etc. G
shall be surface cleaned on daily basis, including on Sundays
and public holidays.

3. We direct and authorised the MCD, NDMC and other
statutory authorities through competent officers, as may be
designated by them, (but not lower than in the rank of H
852 Sl'PREME COl'RT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.

A Sanitary Superintendent or equivalent post) to levy and
recover charges and costs from any person littt:ring or violat-
ing provisions of the diverse Acts, bye-laws and Rt:gulations
relating to sanitation and health for violating the diri:ctions
bt:ing issued herein. Fur this purpose the Commissiont:r,
MCD, Chairman, NDMC and other concerned heads of
B >anitary authorities will prepare and publish for the informa-
tion of public al large t 1e scale of rnch d1arges!costs as may
be levied and recowrcd in respect of the diver~t: acts of
commission/omission. The charges/costs will be recoverable
on the spot by such designated officers from any person found
c littering or throwing rubbish and causing nuisance so as to
affect sanitation and public health. The Commissiont:cr, MCD
and Chairman, NDMC and other authorities may frame and
publish such schemes as may be ntcessary tu ensure com-
pliance of these directions forthwith. Till the scheme is
framed and published, the authorities named above would
D
n:cover Rs. 50 as charges and costs from any person littering
or violating provisions of the Murucipal Corporation Act,
Bye-laws and Regulations relating to sanitation and health.
This part be published and impkmented at the earliest
through concerned Sanitary Inspectors.
E
4. We direct the MCD through the Commissioner, '.'lDMC
through its Chai.rman and other statutory authorities through
their respective heads to ensure proper and sch:ntific disposal
of wask in a manner so as lo subscrvt: the common good. ln
this cofilleci.ion the} shall t:ndcoavuur tu comply with the
F
suggestions and directions contained in the report prepared
by the Asirn Burmon Committte.

5. We direct that sites for land tills will bt: identifit.:d bearing in
4
mind the requirement of Delhi for the next twenty years
G within a period of four weeks from today by the exercise
jointly conducted by Union of India through the Ministry of
Urban Development, Government of National Capital Ter-
ritory of Delhi, Commissioner, MCD and Chairman, NDMC
and other heads of statutory authorities like the DOA etc.
H These sites will be identified keeping in mind the environ-
ALMITRAH. PATbLv. U.0.1.[KIRPAL,J.J 853

mental considerations and in identifying the same Central A
Pollution Control Board's advice will be taken into considera-
tion. The sites so identified shall be handed over to the MCD
and/or NDMC within two weeks of the identification, free
from all encumbrances and without MCD or the NDMC
having to make any payment in respect thereof.
B
6. We din:ct Union of India through the Ministry of Crban
Development, Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi, Commissioner of MCD, Chairman NDMC and other
statutory authorities like ODA and Railways to take ap-
propriate steps for pn:venting any fresh encroachment or c
unauthorised occupation of public land for the purpose of
dwelling resulting in creation of a slum. Further appropriate
steps be taken to improve the sanitation in the existing slums
till they are removed and the land reclaimed.

D
7. We further direct Union of India through Ministry of Urban
Development, Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi, Commissioner, MCD, Chairman, NDMC and other
statutory authorities like ODA etc. to identify and make
available to the MCD and NDMC within four weeks from
today sites for setting up compost plants. initially considering E
the extent of solid waste, which is required to be treated by
compost plants, the number of sites which should be made
available will be eight. Such sites shall be handed over to the
MCD/NDMC free of cost and free from all encumbrances
within two weeks of id.:ntification. MCD and NDMC shall F
then:upon takt: appropriate steps to have the compost
plants/processing plants established or caused to be estab-
lished and to be in operation by 30th September, 2000.

8. We direct the MCD, NDMC and other statutory authorities
concerned with sanitation and public health to regularly G
publish the names of concerned Superintendents of Sanitation
~
and such equivalent officers who are responsible for clearing
Delhi who can be approached for any complaint/grievance by
the citizens of Delhi together with their latest office and
residential telephone numbers and addresses. H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) 1 S.C.R.

A 9. We direct the Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi to appoint Magistrates under Section 20 and/or Section
21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for each
Board/Circle;Ward for c:nsuring compliance of the provisions
of the MCD and NDMC Acts and to try the offences spc:cified
thc:refor in relation to littering and causing nuisance, sanita-
B tion and public health. Tht:se appointments shall be made
within a pc:riod six wct:h from today in conformity with the
reasons containt:d in this order.

10. A!l the concerni;d authoritit:s will file complianct: reports of
thest: directions within eight weeks from today. Tht: Ct:ntral
c
Pollution Control Board will also file within the same time an
affidavit indicating as to what extent the din:ctions issued
have been complied with.

It is needless to say that the violation of the dirt:ctions issued by this
D Court shall be viewed seriously.

R.A. Petition is still pending