Solid waste, a PIL deadline and three competing options
A municipal corporation of 1.2 million people generates 620 tonnes per day of municipal solid waste. Its 20-year-old landfill is exhausted and the processing plant, contracted at ₹1,450 per tonne, handles only 180 TPD because of chronic breakdowns. The penalty clause is weak - ₹5,000 per day, capped at ₹5 lakh a year. Villages near the landfill have won an interim order; the High Court has given six months. The corporation holds ₹90 crore of unspent solid waste management funds. Three proposals are on the table: a waste-to-energy plant at ₹2.2 crore per MW with a 25-year power purchase agreement at ₹7.10 per unit; decentralised composting at ₹1,800 per tonne run by 140 self-help groups; and biomining of the legacy waste heap. Citizens' groups oppose incineration over dioxin risk. Half of the 8,000 sanitation workers are contractual, and their union is threatening a strike over privatisation.
1. Evaluate the three proposals against explicit criteria and recommend a combination, with reasons.
Read the worked answer
Criteria: time to commissioning against a six-month deadline; cost per tonne treated; irreversibility of the commitment; pollution and public-health risk; and employment effects.
Waste-to-energy: slowest (typically 3–4 years), capital-heavy, and locked into a 25-year PPA that shifts waste-composition risk onto citizens - if calorific value falls as wet waste is segregated, the plant demands more waste, which penalises exactly the segregation we need. Dioxin risk is manageable with modern flue-gas treatment but not negligible near a populated site. It cannot solve the six-month problem; at best it is a 2030 answer for the residual fraction.
Decentralised composting: fastest to start, lowest cost per tonne, employs self-help groups, and improves segregation. Its weakness is land for 140 sites and market for compost, but at ₹1,800 per tonne it is unbeatable for the wet fraction, roughly half the stream.
Biomining: the only option that literally clears the court's concern - the legacy heap. It buys time and reclaims land.
Recommendation: biomining plus decentralised composting now, with waste-to-energy deferred subject to a fresh calorific-value study and a renegotiated tariff. Sequencing beats choosing.
2. The contractor is underperforming but the penalty clause caps liability at ₹5 lakh a year. What is your course of action?
Read the worked answer
First, document the shortfall precisely - daily throughput against the contracted 180 TPD minimum, downtime logs, and the consequent additional load on the landfill. A court will ask for these numbers.
Second, use the contract's own instruments before reaching for termination: issue a cure notice with a defined remedy period; invoke whatever escalation the agreement allows beyond the capped penalty; and verify whether the ₹5 lakh cap is a genuine contractual term or a drafting error that can be corrected by a supplementary agreement. If the cap is genuine, the real remedy is not litigation but renegotiation backed by the credible threat of non-renewal and a fresh tender.
Third, prepare for continuity. Terminating an essential public service without a replacement operator is worse than the underperformance. Run a parallel tender for an interim operator while negotiating.
Fourth, fix the template. Any new contract must have uncapped liquidated damages linked to tonnes untreated, performance-linked payment, step-in rights for the corporation, and a bank guarantee sized to actual risk. The present contract is a lesson in what happens when the penalty is smaller than the profit from failing.
3. How would you handle the sanitation workers' union and the demand for more privatisation?
Read the worked answer
Separate the fear from the fact. The union's threat is triggered by the word 'privatisation', but my recommendation - composting through self-help groups and biomining - does not displace existing sanitation workers; it adds capacity. Say that plainly and in writing.
Then negotiate substance, not slogans. Offer: no retrenchment of existing workers; absorption of contractual staff into a defined regularisation schedule tied to vacancies; training and redeployment into segregation, composting and biomining operations, where new jobs are actually being created; and payment of pending wages and provident fund dues before any new contract starts. Ask the union to guarantee collection continuity during the transition.
Reasoning: the union is the only organised workforce capable of making source segregation work at the household level. Antagonising it converts my implementation partner into my principal obstacle. The High Court deadline will not be met through a strike, and a strike in waste collection creates an immediate public health emergency.
Bottom line: no retrenchment, no privatisation of existing collection routes, but genuine accountability for output. If a section of the union resists even that, proceed with the composting and biomining components that do not touch their work, and keep negotiating the rest.