GVMC faces scrutiny over waste management, postings

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) is facing scrutiny over alleged lapses in waste management and internal postings. As a result, concerns are growing in civic and political circles.

GVMC, the State’s largest urban local body, serves nearly 25 lakh people and operates with an annual budget of over Rs 4,000 crore. Therefore, officials say the Municipal Commissioner’s office must enforce rules and prevent undue external influence.

One key issue involves poultry waste disposal. Earlier, a monitoring system ensured that poultry waste went to the Kapuluppada dumping yard. However, complainants now allege that contractors diverted the waste to fish ponds.

“Political pressure was put on field staff to allow the diversion,” a corporator said. Moreover, the corporator claimed that officials informed higher authorities but received no clear response. Consequently, the practice reportedly resumed despite earlier media reports.

Meanwhile, administrative arrangements have also drawn attention. Authorities assigned Satyaveni, a Special Grade Municipal Commissioner and UCD Project Director, to Additional Commissioner duties. However, former officials say procedures clearly govern such assignments. They reportedly submitted representations to higher authorities and referred to a pending Anti-Corruption Bureau case.

Even after officials appointed a full-time Additional Commissioner, P. Nallanayya, Satyaveni continued to oversee General Administration. In contrast, other Additional Commissioners handled Public Health, Revenue, and Projects.

In addition, solid waste management operations have raised questions. GVMC runs Garbage Transfer Stations (GTS) and a Closed Compactor System (CCS) to move waste to Kapuluppada. Officials say the corporation spends about Rs 2 crore each year on every CCS project.

Earlier, authorities found irregularities in a private firm that managed three GTS units and recovered about ₹81 lakh after an inquiry. Nevertheless, the corporation later gave the same firm maintenance work for two CCS projects. As a result, complainants approached Vigilance and Enforcement authorities. “These decisions raise accountability concerns,” a civic source said.

Overall, multiple issues have surfaced within the civic body. Therefore, civic groups are demanding stricter monitoring and greater transparency. They argue that only firm action and rule-based administration can restore public confidence.