Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010153612024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : PIL/43/2024 1.SUBRATA ROY AND 7 ORS VILL.- MATIJURI, P.O.- PAIKAN, PIN- 788155, DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI. 2: SUBHASH GOALA S/O- LATE KRISHNA KUMAR GOALA VILL- MATIJURI P.O.- PAIKAN PIN- 788155 DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI. 3: SHANKAR KOIRI S/O- LATE PANCHAM KOIRI VILL- MATIJURI P.O.- PAIKAN PIN- 788155 DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI. 4: SUJIT ROY S/O- SUKUMAR ROY VILL- MATIJURI P.O.- PAIKAN PIN- 788155 DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI. 5: PULAK KANTI ROY S/O- LATE RASENDRA CHANDRA ROY VILL- MATIJURI P.O.- PAIKAN PIN- 788155 DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI. 6: KABIR AHMED BARBHUYAN S/O- LATE SURMAN ALI BARBHUIYA VILL. AND P.O.- KUCHILA PIN- 788155 DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI. 7: PIKLU ROY S/O- DIGANDRA CHANDRA ROY VILL- MATIJURI P.O.- PAIKAN PIN- 788155 DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI. Page No.# 2/6 8: MAKHAN LAL ROY S/O- LATE GUSAIRAM ROY VILL- MATIJURI P.O.- PAIKAN PIN- 788155 DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM. 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT DISPUR. 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR. 4:THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ASSAM PARK ROAD SILCHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUILDING SILCHAR ASSAM 788002. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI DIST- HAILAKANDI. 6:THE CHAIRMAN MUNICIPAL BOARD HAILAKANDI For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.Y. Choudhury, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.1 & 5. : Ms. P. Thapa, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department for respondent No.3. : Mr. S. Barua, Standing Counsel, Pollution Control Board, Assam for respondent No.4. : Mr. H.K. Das, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. H.I. Choudhury, Advocate for respondent No.6. Page No.# 3/6 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 28.07.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. A.Y. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the petitioners; Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam; Mr. S. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Pollution Control Board, Assam and Mr. H.K. Das, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.6/Chairman, Municipal Board, Hailakandi. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the local residents of Kuchila Paikan area in Hailakandi District of Assam, seeking judicial intervention to stop the open dumping of garbage and solid waste at a site known as “Moilatilla”. The contention of the petitioners is that with the collusion of respondent Nos.5 and 6, the space was used as an unregulated dumping yard for years. Initially, there were no objections to it, but, later, dumping having been permitted for a long time, it became difficult to stay near the area. The petitioners have gone to the extent of saying that it was almost a nightmare to cross the area because of the foul and acrid smell emanating from the dumping site. It was more objectionable because the site in question has a bustling neighbourhood, housing around 300 families, schools, veterinary hospital, agricultural offices and places of Page No.# 4/6 worship like temple and mosque and a busy P.W.D. road passing nearby connecting Hailanakdi -Silchar to Monacherra-Lala. The contention of the State is that initially it began as a landfill site but, later, a decision was taken to establish and commission the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and Waste to Compost Plant (W2C) as a way to develop the sanitary landfill site, under the Swatch Bharat Mission (Urban) 2.0. Today, Mr. H.K. Das, learned Senior Advocate has submitted before this Court the Completion Certificate, issued by the Executive Engineer of the Municipal Board, Hailakandi, certifying that the work of MRF and W2C has been completed 100% in all respects, as per the specifications, drawings and the tender agreements. However, Mr. A. Y. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the selection of the site for these facilities is in derogation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (in short, the Rules of 2016). He submits that under the Rules of 2016, referred to above, what is required is that a landfill site should be 100 metres away from a river; 200 metres from a pond; 200 metres from Highways, habitation, public parks and water supply wells and 20 Kilometres from airports or airbase. However, only under special circumstances, the distance referred to above be reduced specially with respect to a dumping site near airport or airbase but only after obtaining No Objection certificate from the Civil Aviation Authority/Air Force as the case may be. The Rules further require that any landfill site shall not be permitted within the flood plains as recorded for the last 100 years, zone Page No.# 5/6 of coastal regulation, wetland, critical habitat areas and sensitive eco- fragile areas. An exercise on behalf of the petitioners was carried out to take geo-tag photographs, videos and statements of the affected people with regard to the distance of shops, houses, places of worship from the site in question. According to the petitioners, the site chosen is not in consonance with the Rules of 2016. In response to the afore-noted submission, a two-pronged reply has been given by Mr. H.K. Das, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.6. He submits that the statements made regarding the distance is incorrect. The veterinary farm and hospital, which is located nearby, is not functional and the temple, about which reference has been made in the affidavit of the petitioners, is about 300 metres away from the dumping yard. The other argument raised by Mr. Das is that the Rules with respect to the distance are applicable for creating landfill sites. This was in fact a landfill site from the very beginning, as the land belonged to the Municipal Board since 1960s. In an attempt to develop the landfill site, such facilities have been constructed and commissioned, which is not in violation of any of the provisions contained in the Rules of 2016. With the dangers of a large number of scavenging birds hovering around, foul odour emanating from the site and contamination of the nearby pond having been addressed and stopped, the place is no longer a landfill site. In order to prevent such happenings in an unregulated landfill site, Page No.# 6/6 such facilities have been made. Taking into account the statement made about the two facilities, referred to above, having been completed 100% and commissioned as well, we intend to close this petition, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court again in case it is found that such facilities are not working to the satisfaction of the people around. We order accordingly. This petition stands disposed off accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant