Chandigarh: People living in the vicinity of the Dadumajra garbage dump have long been plagued by foul odour. However, this has not prompted the Municipal Corporation (MC) to take a decisive stand.As per affidavits and official records examined by TOI over the years, the civic body has given conflicting accounts of the problem before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the Punjab and Haryana high court.An epidemic risk — or no foul smell?In Nov 2015, an MC commissioner’s order recorded residents’ daily complaints of “foul smell” from the garbage-processing plant opposite the dump.In July 2016, after the garbage-processing plant shut down, the MC told the NGT in an affidavit that there was a “great possibility of an immediate outbreak of an epidemic”.The tribunal’s June 23, 2017, order also recorded the corporation’s position that an “epidemic-like situation has arisen in the locality”.Yet on Sept 8, 2017, the MC filed a signed reply in the high court describing residents’ complaints of constant foul odour affecting the school and colony as “wrong”.The corporation maintained that the garbage was treated to make it odourless and submitted laboratory reports showing the absence of harmful gases. Strangely, the air samples cited were collected on June 21, 2017, two days before the NGT recorded the MC’s epidemic warning.In 2019, the MC’s memo to then plant operator Jaiprakash Associates said the plant accepted only 25% of the city’s waste on average, while “the rest of the waste is being dumped at the landfill site”.Repeated sprayingWhen the MC signed its agreement with Jaiprakash Associates in 2005, it acknowledged that waste at Dadumajra was treated with EM Solution to “defoul” it, but without processing. Its 2017 reply described the same treatment, while a 2022 affidavit said the solution was sprayed to minimise odour.Yet a court-appointed commissioner who inspected the site in May 2026 recorded an “obnoxious intolerable stench” from rooftops in the adjoining colony. There was no smell at the entrance, where a water tank had been “specially arranged” to spray water during her visit.Assurances, unanswered questionsThe MC’s July 2016 affidavit before the NGT, Sept 2017 reply to the high court and Oct 2026 affidavit contain near-identical declarations that they are based on “official records” and that “no part thereof is false, and nothing has been concealed therein”.Still, questions persist. In 2022, the civic body said a wall had been built to prevent leachate from flowing out. A UT administration review in July 2025 recorded contaminated liquid oozing from the boundary wall.In Jan 2026, an FIR was registered after it was found that the city’s untreated waste was being transported to Punjab. The latest affidavit does not address the episode. No inquiry report into fires at the dump, or details of action against officials or contractors, have been placed on record in the material examined by TOI.BOX: Same Problem, Contrasting ClaimsJuly 2016: MC tells the NGT there is a “great possibility of an immediate outbreak of an epidemic” after the processing plant shuts down.June 23, 2017: NGT records the MC’s submission that an “epidemic-like situation has arisen in the locality” due to untreated municipal solid waste.Sept 8, 2017: In its reply/counter-affidavit submitted before the high court, the MC says residents’ claims of constant foul odour are “wrong”. The civic body cites laboratory test reports that were actually prepared and dated June 23, 2017 (certifying ambient air quality parameters and noting no harmful gases or levels within standards at the dumping site).2022: MC says EM Solution is sprayed to minimise odour and claims a wall prevents leachate from flowing out.July 2025: UT administration review records contaminated liquid oozing from the dump’s boundary wall.May 2026: Court-appointed commissioner records an “obnoxious intolerable stench” from rooftops in the adjoining colony.
