CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court on Thursday came down heavily on the Cuttack Municipal Corporation (CMC) over the appalling state of sanitation in the city despite payment of an astronomical sum of over `3.16 crore every month for garbage collection and de-silting of drains.
A division bench of Justices SK Sahoo and V Narasingh took serious note of a media report highlighting how for the past three months, heaps of garbage have been dumped along a 2-km stretch of the Taladanda Canal road near the Settlement Office in Jobra, turning it into both an eyesore and a health hazard for residents and commuters.
During the hearing, counsel for the CMC placed on record reports relating to sanitation arrangements and the beautification and expansion of Taladanda Canal. The court noted that the city has been divided into six zones, with three outsourcing agencies handling two zones each.
The monthly contract payments to these agencies were also detailed in the record placed before the court, which include M/s Jagruti Welfare Organization-Zone I (`60,98,435) and Zone VI (`54,24,241), M/s Pratyush- Zone II (`55,66,379) and Zone V (`47,56,797), M/s G Manju Service Pvt Ltd - Zone III (`45,66,030) and Zone IV (`52,22,905). The total monthly expenditure thus amounted to `3,16,34,787.
“On a bare perusal of the same, it is evident that a sum of `3,16,34,787.00 is paid every month for de-silting of drains and garbage collection. But in the face of payment of such astronomical sum, to say that, the state of sanitation of Cuttack city remains appalling would be an understatement. This prima facie indicates lack of accountability in the face of draining of the state exchequer,” the bench remarked.
Expressing displeasure at the absence of the deputy commissioner when the matter was taken up on Thursday, the bench remarked, “This matter was specifically fixed for today. But surprisingly the concerned official stated to be the deputy commissioner (sanitation) was conspicuously absent when the matter was being deliberated upon. This court does not appreciate such conduct.”
Listing the matter for October 30, the bench directed the officer to remain present on that day so that the report submitted could be considered in his presence.
