Hold corporators liable for uncleared trash HC

 The High Court of Karnataka on Monday asked the residents of Bangalore to hold corporators and ward committee members responsible for uncleared garbage in their respective wards.

During the hearing of a batch of public interest litigations on the garbage crisis in the City, the Division Bench comprising Justices N Kumar and B V Nagarathna said ward committees headed by corporators have a greater role in addressing garbage problem.

If a heap of garbage is left uncleared on the street corner, Citizens should contact the public representatives (corporators, in this case) and members of ward committees for solution, the Bench said. Justice Kumar said in case the corporator or ward committee members do not respond properly, the citizens can file an application before the High Court for initiating necessary action.

The Court asked the BBMP to issue notices to all the contractors entrusted with garbage disposal directing them to file affidavits before the judicial magistrate declaring that they are the original allottees of the contract and that they have not transferred the contract to others. The affidavit should also state whether the contractors have been receiving payments by the Palike.

The Court directed the BBMP to stop releasing payments to M N Sriramulu, who the petitioners claimed, has been allotted the garbage contract, illegally. Petitioners said Sriramulu holds public office as the chairperson of the Karnataka Safai Karmachari Commission and hence was eligible to get  government contracts according to rules.
The Court directed the State government to initiate action against Sriramulu for violating the rules and told the BBMP not to repeat such mistakes in future.

The Bench observed that contractors with support from people in power were being awarded contracts. When the petitioners drew attention of the Court on its directive to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for reserving civic amenity sites for garbage processing, the advocate representing BDA said many such sites were under litigation. The Court then asked the BDA submit a list of CA sites under litigation with details. The matter was adjourned to April 2.