Back
Pulls Up CPCB and DPCC for on Hazardous Waste
Court Warns of Stringent Directions as Container of Toxic Waste Languishes for Four Years
The
has strongly rebuked the
and the
for what it termed a
"typical instance of
"
over the disposal of hazardous waste lying at the Inland Container Depot (ICD) in Tughlakabad. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain made the observation while hearing a petition by
, which had imported a container that was later found to contain plastic trash instead of the declared aluminum scrap.
A Tale of Abandoned Waste and Shifting Blame
The case dates back nearly four years when an importer misdeclared goods and brought in hazardous plastic waste. The importer subsequently absconded, leaving a stuffed container of PVC regrind stranded at the yard of the . Customs authorities insisted that the container be destuffed and returned to the petitioner, while the yard operator claimed it lacked adequate space for such an operation.
After initial hearings, the Court impleaded the CPCB and DPCC as respondents, expecting them to facilitate safe disposal of the hazardous material. However, when the matter came up on , the Court found that neither body was willing to take ownership of the problem.
The Court’s Sharp Observations
“This Court is of the opinion that the present case is a typical instance of . Neither the nor the is willing to assume responsibility for the disposal of the hazardous goods,” the Bench noted.
Highlighting the sheer duration of the inaction, the Court recorded: “The Container has, in the meantime, remained lying in the yard of the for the last four years.”
The judges recalled that on , they had granted a to respondents to reconcile their differences, but even after 20 days, no substantive action was taken. The Court expressed displeasure that the dispute appeared “.”
Final Chance and Concrete Directions
Granting one last opportunity to resolve the controversy, the Court warned that failure would compel it to pass “.” To ensure tangible progress, the Bench directed the Chief Scientist or senior-most scientist of both the CPCB and DPCC to personally visit the ICD, Tughlakabad, and submit a report setting out how the hazardous goods can be safely and lawfully disposed of.
The matter is listed for further hearing on , by which time the report must be ready.
Implications and Next Steps
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s frustration when regulatory bodies abdicate their statutory duties, particularly in matters involving public health and environmental safety. The direction for scientists to visit the site and propose a disposal plan shifts the burden from bureaucratic finger-pointing to evidence-based action. It also serves as a stark reminder that delays in handling hazardous waste can invite judicial ire and mandatory compliance orders. All eyes will now be on the CPCB and DPCC as they prepare their report under the Court’s looming deadline.
