‘Can you outsource core municipal service?’: HC raps Chandigarh admin over poor upkeep of Sector 26 market

During the hearing, the court examined an affidavit filed by the Market Committee, which stated that sanitation work in the mandi, including daily cleaning, is being handled by an outsourced sanitary inspector through a third-party agency. The affidavit also recorded that show-cause notices and warnings had been issued to the sanitary inspector in the past following complaints of poor upkeep.

However, the bench noted that the affidavit did not address the accountability of the Market Committee’s own officials responsible for supervising sanitation, preventing encroachments, and ensuring maintenance of the area. “Let another affidavit be filed to disclose what action has been taken against inactive employees of the mandi,” the bench directed.

CJ Nagu questioned whether foundational civic responsibilities could be outsourced at all. “Can you outsource a basic municipal service? There are certain very foundational municipal functions which have to be performed by your own employees so that you have control over them,” he observed.

The counsel representing the Union territory, arguing for the Market Committee, said that he would need time to examine the enabling provisions under the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Act and applicable rules. He added that periodic cleaning was being carried out and warnings had been issued to the sanitation contractor. When the bench pointed out that recent photographs still showed garbage and litter, the counsel said the images were taken before the morning cleaning cycle and that encroachments had already been removed.

The bench, however, observed that merely issuing warnings to outsourced staff was insufficient if the underlying responsibility rested with the Market Committee’s own supervisory officials. The court also drew attention to the risk of limited disciplinary control over outsourced personnel.

In its previous order on October 13, the court had said that while the Union territory administration’s affidavit revealed that certain penalties had been imposed upon the contractors, it was silent with regard to the role of the officers and employees of the Market Committee.

The court listed the matter for further hearing after four weeks.