Bombay High Court Rejects Petition To Relocate Pune Hadapsar Garbage Depot Near Airport
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the closure and relocation of the Hadapsar garbage depot, a verdict that has come as a major relief to the civic bodies involved. The ruling comes despite serious concerns raised by residents and local businesses regarding the depot’s proximity to Pune airport, which petitioners claimed posed a significant bird-hit risk. The court’s decision, while preserving the status quo of waste management, has ignited a public discourse on sustainable urban development and the environmental cost of traditional waste disposal methods. The judiciary has, however, directed the municipal corporation and cantonment board to implement stringent measures to mitigate the environmental impact, including foul odours and open-air waste segregation. This verdict underscores the complex challenge of balancing essential civic services with public health and ecological safety in a rapidly expanding metropolis.
For years, the Hadapsar site has been a flashpoint of contention, situated just eight kilometres from the Pune airport runway. Residents and local business associations had united to file a public interest litigation, citing daily hardships and fears of a potential aviation disaster. Their concerns were amplified by a recent incident where a flight was reportedly diverted to Mumbai due to a large number of birds in the funnel area. The petitioners argued that the site’s operation, which involves processing 800 to 900 tonnes of mixed waste daily, creates an environment that attracts avian life, thereby increasing the risk of bird-hit incidents. This clash between aviation safety and waste management highlights a critical oversight in urban planning, where essential infrastructure projects are often sited without a comprehensive assessment of their long-term environmental and social ramifications.
In its directive, the High Court ordered the civic bodies to move trommel machines, currently operating in the open, into a shed or an alternative enclosed location. This mandate is a direct response to the petitioners’ claims that the open-air segregation of waste was a primary source of foul odour and a health hazard. The court further instructed the administration to ensure regular bio-culture spraying by contractors to curb the stench emanating from the depot’s operations. Moreover, a strict enforcement of rules for the separate collection of wet and dry waste was emphasised, along with a demand for a detailed report on the three-year-old open-air segregation project. These directives signal a judicial recognition of the environmental and public health crises caused by inefficient waste management, pushing authorities towards more sustainable and contained methods.
The ruling, while a victory for the civic bodies, has left many residents and environmentalists disappointed. They argue that the decision fails to address the root cause of the problem—the continued use of a large, open-air waste processing facility in a densely populated area and near a critical piece of transport infrastructure. Experts suggest that a long-term, zero-carbon solution would involve decentralised waste processing, where waste is managed closer to its source, reducing transportation emissions and the need for large, environmentally disruptive depots. The current model, which includes a 200-tonne wet waste processing project and a 150-tonne compost and RDF generation facility, appears insufficient to handle the colossal volume of waste generated by the city. This ongoing saga serves as a potent reminder of the urgent need for a paradigm shift in urban waste management, moving away from centralised dumps towards a circular economy model that is both environmentally friendly and socially equitable. The court’s directives are a step towards better management, but they do not negate the fundamental challenge of building a truly sustainable and green city.
