Garbage collection RTI: make the ULB show the roster

Garbage is the municipal service people touch daily, which is exactly why its failure is so corrosive: the same lane watches the truck skip it, the app close the complaint, and the ward office promise “from Monday”. None of that is invisible. A collection roster exists, a contract exists, attendance logs exist, and money has moved against all three. The RTI route asks the ULB to put those on the table.

• Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 — notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on 27 January 2026 (S.O. 388(E)) and in force from 1 April 2026, in supersession of the 2016 Rules. They apply to every urban and rural local body and to all entities within their jurisdiction, including private and PPP operators.
• Four-stream segregation — under the 2026 Rules, every waste generator must segregate at source into wet, dry, sanitary and special care waste and hand it over as the local authority directs. Collection machinery must match; a ward collecting mixed waste is not complying.
• Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban) — central support for sanitation infrastructure; the Mission's portal and the Swachhata app are the record-generating channels.
• RTI Act 2005 — section 4(1)(b) obliges the ULB to proactively publish its schemes, beneficiaries and works; section 6 lets you ask for the rest.

• The door-to-door collection roster for your ward and lane for the last 30 days — never one day, which is too narrow to show a pattern.
• The sanitation contract: number, value, period, scope of work, and the penalty clause for missed collection.
• Attendance of collection staff and vehicle logs for your ward.
• Payments made to the contractor against the contract, with dates.
• Swachh Bharat fund utilisation for the ward in the current financial year.
• Action taken on your complaint numbers, with dates and the officer's name.

Kashvi Pathak's lane was collected twice a week against a daily schedule; the app closed each complaint as “resolved”. Her RTI asked for the roster for the lane, the vehicle log, and the action-taken report on three complaint numbers. The reply showed the vehicle had been marked “route completed” on days the GPS log recorded no entry into the ward — and that the contractor had been paid in full for those months. A copy to the Municipal Commissioner under the contract's penalty clause produced a supervisor change and daily collection within three weeks. The garbage came back on schedule because the paper trail stopped adding up.

To:
The Public Information Officer,
[Municipal Corporation / Council / Nagar Panchayat], [city]

Subject: Application under section 6, RTI Act 2005 —
solid waste collection in Ward No. [NUMBER]

Sir/Madam, in respect of Ward No. [NUMBER], Lane
[NAME], kindly provide:

1. The door-to-door collection roster for the said lane
   for [DATE A] to [DATE B], with days marked as
   collected or missed.
2. Details of the sanitation contract for this ward:
   contract number, agency, value, period, scope, and
   the penalty clause for missed collection.
3. Attendance of collection staff and GPS or trip logs
   of collection vehicles for the ward for the period.
4. Payments made to the contractor under the contract
   during the period, with dates and amounts.
5. Utilisation of Swachh Bharat Mission funds for the
   ward in FY [YEAR-YEAR], work-wise.
6. Action taken on complaint Nos. [NUMBERS] dated
   [DATES], including the officer responsible.

Application fee of Rs. 10 paid as per state rules.

Yours faithfully,
[Name, address, phone]

• File to the ULB that holds the contract — corporation, council or nagar panchayat. Not the district administration.
• In Delhi, the unified Municipal Corporation of Delhi covers the municipal areas since the 2022 merger; the New Delhi Municipal Council and Delhi Cantonment Board run their own.
• A private contractor is not a separate fortress: it is an instrument of the ULB, and the records it generates on contract are disclosable through the ULB's PIO.

• Day 30, no reply — first appeal within 30 days under section 19(1), usually to the Joint Commissioner or a senior officer as FAA; decision within 30 days, extendable to 45.
• Empty reply — second appeal to the State Information Commission within 90 days under section 19(3).
• Parallel channels — the Swachhata app for new complaints, and a copy of the RTI reply to the Commissioner where the reply shows payment against undelivered service.

Yes. The contractor acts under a ULB contract; its route logs and attendance, generated for the ULB, are records “held” by the public authority. Ask the ULB, not the contractor.

Reframe: ask for the ward's collection arrangement under the SWM Rules, 2026, the timeline for providing door-to-door collection, and the funds sanctioned for it. Absence of a service is a record too — the plan that was supposed to create it.

Yes — the officer responsible for your ward is administrative information, and asking for the name and designation of the responsible officer is a standard, unrefusable RTI point.

The 2026 Rules apply to rural local bodies as well, so the same questions go to the panchayat or block; the funds trail differs. The general method is unchanged.

• Municipal complaint RTI — the action-taken report
• Drainage complaint RTI
• Encroachment complaint RTI
• Garbage and street cleaning complaint guide
• File RTI online — 12 steps
• RTI — 25 questions answered
• The RTI Playbook book — the complete drafting and appeals guide.

Last reviewed: 26 August 2026.