4 min readMumbaiJun 25, 2026 01:04 AM IST
First published on: Jun 24, 2026 at 08:09 PM IST
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday observed that the BMC and MPCB machinery, “fully activated” after several orders passed from time to time, had become “conscious and fully conversant” of complaints related to odour-causing activities and emission of dangerous gases from the Kanjurmarg dumping site in eastern Mumbai, but said “critical compliances” related to the pollution issue were still required as the nuisance continued on certain occasions.
While authorities and the operator of the dumping site informed the court about a reduction in the number of complaints related to odour and pollution, the HC said that if “meticulous adherence” to the norms is followed and complied with through special measures, “certainly there would be relief which would be brought about, more particularly during the present monsoonal season.”
The Court also recorded grievances by the petitioners regarding the absence of 24-hour monitoring at the site causing the likelihood of “dereliction at the site” and insufficient monitoring of parameters related to Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S), Particulate Matter-10 (PM10) and PM2 levels and sought action from the authorities.
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) officers claimed 24-hour monitoring was being undertaken, after which the court asked the civic body, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and the site operator to file affidavits recording complaints of earlier directives.
A bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Aarti A Sathe was hearing pleas including that of residents in the vicinity, raising issues concerning disposal of municipal solid waste at the site.
On Wednesday, MPCB, in response to HC’s May 7 order, filed an affidavit stating notices were issued to the BMC and the operator seeking nearly 22 complaints and the civic body claimed to have undertaken some of them to ensure the issue does not aggravate, while the others were underway. The MPCB found “major deficiencies and non compliances” by the authorities.
Advocate Abhijeet Rane for the petitioner residents however disputed the BMC’s claim and argued that while the odour had reduced, on certain occasions the nuisance has continued and the same required urgent redressal.
The BMC and site operator through senior advocate Anil Sakhare and Advocate Saket Mone said grievance redressal form was made available to raise complaints and claimed to have planted 5, 029 trees to create a “buffer zone” and assured of of 10, 000 additional trees and said efforts will be made to ensure all of them survive.
“Be that as it may, it appears to us that considering the orders passed by this court from time to time, not only the official machinery of the BMC but also of the MPCB is now fully activated, as also they are conscious of the nature of the complaints being received and are also now fully conversant with the nature of the activities and the reasons why the odour is generated,” the bench noted.
“What is required to be achieved now are the various compliances and most importantly the critical compliances in so far as the grievances of the petitioners are concerned, in regard to the odour and smell and the pollution being generated,” it added.
Seeking affidavits from respondent authorities and the site operator containing reports of the compliance of norms laid down by MPCB and the HC-appointed monitoring committee within two weeks, followed by a rejoinder by the petitioner, the HC posted the further hearing to July 15.
The Court also recorded grievances by the petitioners regarding the absence of 24-hour monitoring at the site causing the likelihood of "dereliction at the site" and insufficient monitoring of parameters related to Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S), Particulate Matter-10 (PM10) and PM2 levels and sought action from the authorities. (Express Photo) 
Share
