NGT Slams Maharashtra's Waste Management Report As 'Superficial'; Seeks Fresh Action Plan By October 27

The Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal has described the reports submitted by the Chief Secretary of the Maharashtra State Government as cryptic, superficial, and failing to reflect the ground realities in connection with the solid and liquid waste management plan. The tribunal further held that there was an absolute lack of seriousness in the remediation of large dumping sites at Deonar and Mulund in Greater Mumbai.

It also noted that in cities like Mumbai and Pune, waste processing facilities—such as waste-to-energy and biogas plants—are either still at the land acquisition stage or under construction. Moreover, no information has been provided regarding the quantity of legacy waste present in each Urban Local Body (ULB). The Tribunal, therefore, directed the State Government to file a fresh action-taken report covering all aspects of waste disposal before October 27.

The Tribunal was hearing the issue of solid and liquid waste management in compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2019 orders in the writ petition Almitra H. Patel vs. Union of India & Ors., concerning solid waste management, and the order dated 22.02.2017 in W.P. No. 375/2012, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 326, Paryavaran Suraksha vs. Union of India, regarding liquid waste management (sewage).

While reviewing the reports filed by the Chief Secretary on January 20, the Tribunal observed: “We find that the entire report is very cryptic, superficial, and does not bring out ground realities. We also could not get proper assistance from the two learned counsels present initially.”

Highlighting several loopholes, the Tribunal further noted:

“Our general observations about the report are as follows:

(i) The report lacks data for each ULB (Urban Local Body).

(ii) The provided data has not been reconciled, particularly in reference to the number of ULBs and other facts.

(iii) There appears to be no review of what has been filed and its implications, particularly regarding non-compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

Regarding solid waste management, the Tribunal pointed out major deficiencies in the report, stating:

(i) Against a waste generation of 23,614 (Tonnes Per Day) TPD by 411 ULBs, only 22,510 TPD is being processed, leaving a gap of 1,104 TPD.

(ii) There are no details about the waste processing status and the processing gap for each ULB. The information provided is sketchy. The report should have disclosed factual data on waste generation, processing capacity, processing gaps, and the types of processing being implemented.

The Tribunal reiterated that in cities like Mumbai and Pune, waste processing facilities such as waste-to-energy and biogas plants are still in the land acquisition or construction stage. “There is no disclosure of the quantities of legacy waste in each ULB. As per the report, of the 273 dumpsites, 193 have been remediated, and all 80 remaining sites are targeted for remediation by March 31, 2025. However, no details have been disclosed about the quantity of legacy waste at these 80 sites, nor have details been provided about the 193 remediated sites—particularly regarding the disposal of rejects and residues.”

The Tribunal added: “We also find an absolute lack of seriousness in the remediation of the massive sites at Deonar and Mulund in Greater Mumbai.”

Commenting on the Deonar site specifically, the Tribunal stated that the report mentions remediation will take five years, but fails to disclose a timeline for the remediation of the remaining waste at the Mulund site. “There is no disclosure of a gap analysis for each ULB. Municipal bodies should have proper design modules based on population, along with identified executing agencies. We could not find any quality analysis of treated sewage from existing STPs (Sewage Treatment Plants).”

The Tribunal also noted: “We find from the annexures attached to the reports that costing has been done for setting up the required sewage and solid waste management facilities. However, the reports do not disclose the allocations made to each ULB to bridge the gaps.”

Directing the state to submit a comprehensive report, the Tribunal concluded: “The next report should disclose the factual status of solid and liquid waste management for each ULB.”