The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has directed Sikkim government to submit a fresh report outlining the steps taken to manage solid and liquid waste. The bench, comprising NGT Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Sudhir Agarwal, observed multiple deficiencies in the existing report, necessitating a revised submission.
The court would next hear the case on October 14, 2025.
The tribunal is monitoring solid and liquid waste management in line with Supreme Court orders. Upon reviewing Sikkim’s report, the court noted several shortcomings, stating that the document failed to reflect the factual status of waste management in the state.
For instance, the report lacks information on the daily quantity of solid waste generated by each urban local body (ULB), details on processing, existing gaps and a time-bound plan to address them.
Regarding the remediation of legacy waste at the Gangtok (Martam) site, the report states that 100,000 metric tonnes (MT) remain and will be treated by December 2025. However, it does not disclose the characteristics of the reclaimed soil or the total area recovered following the clearance of 129,000 MT of waste.
The court has directed that the next report must include details of waste processing gaps and an assessment of legacy waste in ULBs and processing methodologies adopted by each ULB, including routes for processed materials, rejects and residues. A status update for each urban local body in a specified format should also be provided.
Similarly, in terms of sewage management, the court noted that while the report estimated the state’s sewage generation at 40 megalitres per day (MLD), it fails to provide ULB-wise data. Although details of existing sewage treatment plants (STPs) in Gangtok are included, the report does not specify the number of connected and unconnected households, particularly those relying on septic tanks.
Additionally, the performance of STPs and mobile sewage treatment units (MTUs), including their technical specifications, effectiveness and overall utility, has not been provided. There is also no mention of efforts to adopt decentralised modular STPs for sparsely populated areas.
The NGT’s order, issued on January 16, 2025, was uploaded to its website on January 24, 2025.
The NGT, January 24, 2025 directed the relevant authorities and the mining company to respond to allegations of illegal mining on the Yamuna riverbank in Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand.
The tribunal ordered responses from the Uttarakhand government through the secretary of the environment department, the director of mining and geology, the district magistrate of Uttarkashi, the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
It also sought responses from project proponent Astitwa Anantraj Enterprises and raw material supplier Varsha Devi. The order was forwarded to the district magistrate of Uttarkashi for necessary compliance.
The case concerns illegal mining activities on the Yamuna’s riverbank and the alleged operation of a stone crusher by Astitwa Anantraj Enterprises in violation of environmental laws. In an earlier order on November 26, 2024, the NGT had directed a joint committee to inspect the site, collect relevant information and submit a report. The committee’s findings, dated December 30, 2024, were later reviewed by the tribunal.
However, when the tribunal examined the report on January 24, 2025, it found that the joint committee had failed to address key concerns, including previous instances of illegal mining in the area and whether the project proponent had complied with Consent to Operate conditions and guidelines issued by the CPCB and the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board.
The committee also did not evaluate whether the project met the required location criteria or adhered to compliance norms, the tribunal noted.
The report mentioned that a penalty of Rs 1,06,42,748 had been imposed on Astitwa Anantraj Enterprises through a notice dated August 6, 2022. However, the penalty was later waived through a notice dated May 18, 2023, based on the company’s claim that raw materials were supplied by Devi, who is reportedly a permit holder for river dredging in village Paletha. The tribunal noted that the legality of this waiver also needed to be reviewed.
The joint committee has now been directed to conduct a more thorough investigation into the illegal mining activities, collect all relevant documents related to the river dredging permit issued to Devi, assess the quantity of material supplied under this permit to Astitwa Anantraj Enterprises and determine the total raw material used during the period in question.
The court has ordered the committee to submit an additional report covering all these aspects within a month.