Court orders incineration of hazardous waste, initiates inquiry into negligence, and monitors compliance with waste management rules.

The Court directed the incineration of hazardous waste containers, emphasizing compliance with The Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling, and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. It approved a company for disposal, outlined detailed procedures for transportation and disposal, and criticized customs and other authorities for inaction. The Court ordered the recovery of costs incurred in incineration and initiated an inquiry into the negligence of concerned officers. A Committee was appointed for the inquiry, and the matter was set for further hearing to monitor progress and address additional issues.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-incineration of hazardous waste containers.
2. Compliance with The Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling, and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008.
3. Responsibility for transportation and disposal of hazardous waste.
4. Accountability of customs and other authorities for dereliction of duty.
5. Recovery of costs incurred in the incineration process.
6. Inquiry into the inaction of concerned officers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-incineration of Hazardous Waste Containers:
The Court noted that despite previous orders, 170 containers of hazardous waste were lying without incineration. The number of such containers had increased to 212. The Court directed the filing of necessary affidavits to state the steps to be taken for incineration. Subsequent affidavits were incomplete, leading to the appointment of experts and submission of a comprehensive report.

2. Compliance with The Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling, and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008:
The Court emphasized the need for compliance with the 2008 Rules, particularly Rules 4, 5, and 6, which lay down the procedure for handling hazardous wastes. The Court expected the agency to follow these statutory rules and the rules framed for the protection of employees involved in hazardous procedures.

3. Responsibility for Transportation and Disposal of Hazardous Waste:
The Court approved the Committee's recommendation to prefer Mumbai Waste Management Ltd. for incineration. The agency agreed to the suggested rates for disposal. The Committee outlined detailed modalities for the destruction and final disposal of hazardous wastes, including supervision by MPCB officers, adherence to manifest documents, and strict responsibility of the transporter for safe transportation.

4. Accountability of Customs and Other Authorities for Dereliction of Duty:
The Court highlighted the inaction of customs and other authorities over the years. It referenced previous orders directing the authorities to furnish information about the containers and noted the lack of compliance. The Court criticized the authorities for not taking timely action and stressed that no court orders were required for incineration or deciding responsibility.

5. Recovery of Costs Incurred in the Incineration Process:
The Court directed the customs authorities to take steps to recover the amount spent on the incineration process and other charges. Necessary action was to be taken against importers, shipliners, and custodians responsible for dumping the waste material.

6. Inquiry into the Inaction of Concerned Officers:
The Court noted the complete apathy and inaction of the concerned officers over the years. It directed an appropriate inquiry to ascertain the responsible officers and decide on disciplinary and other measures. A Committee consisting of officials from the Department of Revenue and Finance, Ministry of Environment & Forest, and Ministry of Shipping was appointed to conduct the inquiry.

Conclusion:
The Court accepted the report on the disposal process, which was expected to take about 60 days. The Commissioner (Customs) was to file interim and final reports on the progress. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on 8th July 2014, allowing the petitioner to raise additional issues at the appropriate stage.

---