‘Waste ismanagement' sparks inquiry at Palwal landfill
A project that aims to clear legacy waste from Palwal's landfill by using microbes has come under serious scrutiny, with environmentalists, legal experts, and activists alleging large-scale irregularities, procedural violations, and potential misuse of public funds. Officials have ordered a fresh investigation after calls from activists demanding an 'independent probe' into what they describe as a civic scam disguised as environmental cleanup.
Despite claims by municipal authorities that waste segregation, treatment, and disposal are proceeding under strict technical supervision, locals argue the project has failed to deliver tangible outcomes. Environmentalist Vaishali Rana alleged that the contractor responsible for the project dumped legacy waste in the Aravalli Hills instead of transporting it to Palwal. 'Without any transportation records, how can the municipal corporation release the funds? This is just an eyewash. It's a scam,' Rana said, accusing both the contractor and civic officials of collusion.
Raising further concerns, Supreme Court advocate and social activist Rajeev Yadav highlighted serious procedural lapses in the waste transportation process. 'Transporting waste to another district wasn't even part of the RFP (request for proposal). Only the Directorate of Urban Local Bodies can permit such movement — yet the Secretary of MC Tauru gave unauthorised permission,' he said. Yadav also pointed out the absence of route plans, GPS tracking, vehicle monitoring, and required concurrence from DMC Palwal, calling these omissions a violation of National Green Tribunal (NGT) norms, which bar the transportation of legacy waste across districts.
Social activist Younis Khan from Tauru also alleged that large amounts of untreated waste were dumped directly into the Aravallis without any transportation to Palwal for scientific processing. 'This is environmental destruction disguised as waste management,' he said.
Dr Sushil Malik, district municipal commissioner, Nuh, said that they are conducting investigation into the matter. 'strict action will be taken against the contractor and official if found guilty,' he said.
Separately, contractor Karan Nain, who is executing the project, claimed that corruption had become a prerequisite for survival. 'I had to pay officials to clear the bills. The corruption level is so high that without engaging in illegal activity, it is impossible to survive or make any profit,' Nain said.
The allegations have prompted the deputy commissioner of Nuh, Vishram Kumar Meena, to order a fresh inquiry. 'We had earlier formed a team, but no report was received. A fresh investigation will be conducted, and strict action will be taken if wrongdoing is found,' Meena said, adding that the review would focus on payments released after objections were raised in March.
In response, Haryana forest minister Rao Narbir Singh also took note of the allegations, adding, 'A penalty will be imposed on the contractor, and if any department official is found involved, strict action will follow.'
Launched in line with NGT directives for scientific waste processing by urban local bodies across Haryana, the Palwal bio-remediation project was originally positioned as a model initiative for rehabilitating degraded land and curbing pollution. Civic officials had earlier claimed dedicated teams were overseeing operations and that weekly progress reports were being submitted for review.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC refuses to entertain plea challenging ‘push backs' from Assam to Bangladesh
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition challenging alleged deportations to Bangladesh of people other than 63 individuals identified as foreigners in Assam and directed the petitioner to approach the high court. 'You take your recourse to approach the Gauhati high court. 63 persons are being deported. You go to the high court,' said a bench of justices Sanjay Karol and SC Sharma, as it heard a student group's petition. The petition annexed press clippings showing people other than the 63 were being picked up and deported to Bangladesh. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who represented the petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU), said the 63 were declared foreigners after the external affairs ministry and Bangladesh confirmed their nationality for deportations. 'The action of deportation is based on a pending order,' he said, referring to a February 4 Supreme Court order asking the Union and the Assam governments to deport the foreigners at an Assam detention centre by expediting the process of verification of their nationality with the external affairs ministry and Bangladesh. The court also scheduled for next week the hearing of a habeas corpus plea of a son seeking the whereabouts of his mother, claiming police picked her up for deportation to Bangladesh. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the petitioner, said the alleged arrest was directly in violation of the DK Basu guidelines of the Supreme Court on arrests. 'They simply come and pick her up, and she is thrown out. She was out on bail by the order of this court since December 28, 2019.' Sibal cited the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Versus Union of India case. He added that the court directed the release of detainees in the foreigners camp in Assam, who had completed over three years in detention, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner's mother, Monowara Bera, was among those detainees granted bail. The court said it would tag this matter with a pending plea. 'We do not know if she is in the country anymore.' Sibal said that the petitioner has approached the court to know her whereabouts. 'Let the state file a counter, as we do not know where she is. They need to respond where she is.' The court issued a notice to the Assam government after the petitioner said that his mother was detained at Dhubri police station since May 24, and he has no information whether she was deported. ABMSU has cited similar instances of deportation, citing newspaper reports. It said retired school teacher Kahirul Islam, Abu Bakkar Siddik, and Akbar Ali were allegedly 'pushed back' into Bangladesh without due process. The ABMSU's petition said the instances reflect a growing pattern of Assam Police and administration's deportations through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards the Constitution and the Supreme Court envisage. The petition said the 'push back' policy was being implemented in the border districts of Dhubri, South Salmara, and Goalpara. 'This is not only legally indefensible, but also threatens to render stateless numerous Indian citizens, especially those from poor and marginalised communities who were either declared foreigners ex parte or have no access to legal aid to challenge their status.' The petition sought a stay on the deportations of people other than those on the list of 63 foreigners and a direction to the state and Union government to place the record of the process before the Supreme Court.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea over deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to approach High Court
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. "Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. "Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed. Live Events Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. "Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly " pushed back " into Bangladesh . "These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court," it claimed. "The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 ( equality before law ) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents.
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
SC Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Assam's Indiscriminate Deportations
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea filed by All B.T.C. Minority Students' Union (ABMSU) raising concerns over Assam's government's 'indiscriminate' drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma suggested that the petitioner organisation approach the Gauhati High Court for appropriate relief. 'Please go to the Gauhati High Court. We are dismissing this (petition),' the apex court said. The writ petition filed by ABMSU, a social and students' organisation working in Assam's Bodoland, questioned the growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution or the top court. 'This policy of 'push back'-- being executed in border districts like Dhubri, South Salmara, and Goalpara -- is not only legally indefensible, but also threatens to render stateless numerous Indian citizens, especially those from poor and marginalised communities who were either declared foreigners ex parte or have no access to legal aid to challenge their status,' said the petition filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed. It added that such actions are directly contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution, and violate binding judicial precedents laid down by the Supreme Court, including the judgment in 'Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955' case. 'Despite these safeguards, individuals are being detained and deported without communication of Foreigners Tribunal orders, without nationality verification by the Ministry of External Affairs, and in many cases, without even being informed of their right to seek review or appeal,' contended the petition. It sought a declaration that deportation without due process, including judicial declaration, MEA verification, and exhaustion of remedies, is unconstitutional and sought remedial steps through the NHRC and legal services authorities to protect the rights of affected individuals.
