SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

(1) THERE are two aspects which came up for consideration at this stage. One is dealing with the solid waste and the second is clearance of slums. The a two are inter-related inasmuch as, as have been pointed by the Additional Solicitor General at an earlier point of time, and that is also borne out from the report of the CPCB, the slums are generating a lot of untreated solid waste and adding to the pollution.

(2) AS far as the treatment of solid waste is concerned, the affidavit on behalf of Bangalore City Corporation has been filed indicating therein the ^ various recommendations contained in the Barman Committee Report and the response of the Commissioner, Bangalore City in respect thereof. With regard to the recommendation concerning the separation of the recyclable waste/non-biodegradable waste as well as domestic hazardous waste at source, the affidavit states that the Corporation has launched a scheme known as "Swachha Bangalore Phase-1". We are informed by the learned c counsel that about 60 health wards in the city have come under this Scheme. The Scheme envisages door-to-door collection of domestic waste by municipal workmen who are known here as safai karamcharis. We are further informed that in respect of another area, because there are no sufficient number of such workers available, the scheme of "Swachha Bangalore" is being worked by hiring private hands. Mr Javali states that at the end of the ^ day the cost of collection of one tonne of garbage through municipal employees comes to about Rs 995 per ton per annum whereas through private hands comes to about Rs 668. It, therefore, means that 50 per cent more expense is being incurred in collection of garbage through municipal employees. Mr Javali submits that in view of this the Corporation is taking steps to see that there is no legal impediment in their way in entrusting the e task of cleaning, scavenging and collection of waste through private contractors. A decision in this respect is for the Government to take and it is not for the Court to direct.

(3) IT appears to us that if a Scheme like "Swachha Bangalore" can be successfully launched with satisfactory results in the metropolitan town of Bangalore, that can be and should be a role-model for other cities, especially Delhi. There is unfortunately no positive response or suggestion or innovative step taken in Delhi except to a large extent by NDMC. The response of MCD leaves much to be desired and MCD should consider and take benefit from the successful experiment of Bangalore and Calcutta. There is no reason why the large army of safai karamcharis of Delhi cannot be deputed to do door-to-door collection of garbage at least in DDA and other ^ government colonies to begin with. Mr Maheshwari has submitted that this effort was tried in 1996 but it was unsuccessful. As to why it was not successful is not indicated and why it cannot be successful is not known. A similar effort of door-to-door collection should also start in the slum areas of Delhi as soon as possible in an effort to clean the same. An affidavit should be filed by Delhi Municipal Corporation dealing with each one of the recommendations of the Barman Committee Report.

(4) AS we understand it, the door-to-door collection is not only mechanical but is also the responsibility of the collectors to educate the a people how to segregate the waste and to put it in different containers

(5) NDMC in its affidavit has stated that efforts are being made to improve the sanitation and solid waste management in Delhi. NDMC is stated to be over-staffed spending 35 per cent of its revenue on pay, allowances etc. as against the world city standards of only 15 to 20 per cent. The high rate of absenteeism is stated to have been reduced amongst safai karamcharis from 30 percent to 15 per cent and it intends to reduce the same to a minimum of 10 per cent. NDMC has stated that they should