Chandigarh MC accused of falsifying Dadumajra landfill data, HC seeks response
The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed the Chandigarh municipal corporation to file a detailed affidavit in response to a petition alleging systematic perjury and falsified waste data to mislead the court in the long-standing Dadumajra garbage dump case.
During the resumed hearing, the division bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sumeet Goel considered arguments on two applications filed by petitioner advocate Amit Sharma—one in January and another in February 2025.
The January application focused on MC’s repeated false statements in court regarding waste management, while other accused MC of manipulating waste quantum figures and extended deadlines for over seven years, issuing tenders worth crores—sometimes for nearly double the reported waste—yet failing to clear the dump.
Sharma, appearing in person, cited a December 12, 2024, order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which he said categorically debunked MC’s claims. He told the court that the NGT order clearly stated that leachate remained uncontrolled, the waste treatment plant was non-functional and the legacy waste dump had not been cleared, contradicting MC’s affidavits.
Sharma argued that this was not a recent lapse but a pattern of deception spanning 8-10 years. “MC has been fabricating numbers, shifting deadlines and presenting falsified data before various forums, including this court and NGT. Every major aspect of waste management—waste quantum, dump sizes, tenders or long-term waste solutions—has been manipulated,” he asserted.
MC objects
At the outset, MC’s counsel Gaurav Mohunta objected, stating that the petitioner had expanded the scope of the matter in which a notice of perjury had already been issued and was now raising issues spanning the entire case history.
Sharma countered that he had filed two distinct applications to establish that perjury was not an isolated act but a long-running pattern of deception over 8-10 years.
After hearing both sides and reviewing the applications, the high court directed MC to file a reply in response to the application filed in February, while the other application filed in January will be taken up separately. The case was adjourned to March 24 for further hearing.
