MARGAO
Politicians and Margao councillors have rushed to claim credit for the changing situation at Sonsodo, taking pride in saying that the decades-old waste dump is free from stink, odour, flies, fires, etc.
Behind the Sonsodo turnaround is the “Hand” of the High Court, which got the authorities activated to the harsh reality at the waste dumping yard, pulled the agencies for defaulting in discharging its duties and even got the government to submit an action plan to resolve the Sonsodo imbroglio in the last five years since the Citizens for Sonsodo through its secretary Roque Mascarenhas and the Goa Foundation through its Secretary Claude Alvares filed the Public Interest Litigation in the year 2019.
A glance at the March 12 High Court order disposing of the PIL reveals that the High Court saw to it that Sonsodo is finally rid of the stink and pollution and ensured that the measures were taken to its logical conclusion.
The MMC, the GSPCB and the GWMC not only came under the High Court’s close scrutiny, but had to face the Court’s ire time and again.
A mere glance at the High Court’s observations shows that the Court had to repeatedly intervene to bring Sonsodo back on the track. The High Court once observed: “The MMC defaulted on the matter of waste segregation. The MSW Rules were observed only in breach. There was rampant burning of waste at the site, which the rules prohibit. No serious steps were being taken to clear waste and legacy waste. Even though a statutory regime was in place, neither the MMC nor the GSPCB were interested in complying with or enforcing rules. As a result, no solution seemed to be in sight for resolving the Sonsodo dump site issue.”
On December 6, 2019 when the High Court was hearing arguments in this matter, a massive fire broke out at Sonsodo. This had prompted the High Court to note that really grave emergency had arisen at the Sonsodo dump, and unless immediate and coordinated efforts were undertaken by all concerned, the Sonsodo dump site would pose a severe threat.
In the High Court order dated September 21, 2022, the High Court held that the Managing Director of GWMC and the Chairperson of MMC would be held personally responsible for non-compliance with the directions because, despite granting ample time and opportunities, both these authorities had failed to sort out the issue of remediation of the legacy dump.
At one of the hearings, the petitioners appeared to have used harsh words, but as the matter progressed, the Court realised that there was nothing harsh with the words used by the petitioners, as there was ample material to establish that the MMC’s conduct was precisely as was described by the petitioners in this petition. “The MMC violated the provisions of the EPA and MSW Rules with impunity. The directions issued by this Court from time to time in previous proceedings were also not cared for by the MMC. Though the Sonsodo site posed a serious health hazard and was a source of air, land, and water pollution of sizable proportions, the MMC was not bothered. Similarly, the GSPCB, after issuing some notices, never seriously bothered to implement or ensure implementation of its directions. In short, when this petition was instituted, the problems at the Sonsodo dump site had reached alarming proportions and the MMC, except for draining public monies, had done nothing concrete to find either short-term or long-term solution to this entire issue,” the Court had observed.
The Court took cognizance of the record showing that when the stench and pollution were unbearable, and some activists pressured the authorities into acting, some notices were issued to the MMC, and most were by way of lip service. “Neither did the MMC care for such notice, nor were authorities interested in enforcing their notices. The GSPCB, health authorities, MMC, and all other authorities enjoined with statutory duties of redressing the situation displayed complete apathy in handling this issue,” the Court observed.
In another observation, the Court stated, “Unfortunately, this Sonsodo dump was seen as a source for awarding contracts to agencies at the taxpayers cost. Again, the contractors floundered, and authorities which awarded such contracts by spending public monies were not serious about ensuring compliance. As a result, serious menace continued unabated with no solution in sight.”
