http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: J.P. RAVIDAS & ORS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NAVYUVAK HARIJAN UTHAPAN MULTI UNIT INDUSTRIAL COOP. SOCIETY

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/04/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises  from  the  order dated November  8, 1993  made in  Appeal No.  790/93 by  the Bombay High Court.  The admitted facts are that a society by name Navyuvak  Harijan Utthapan  Multi Unit Industrial Coop. Society Ltd.  was formed on June 7, 1979.  It was registered under the  Cooperative Societies Act for industrial purpose. The Government  have allotted  to the said Society two acres of land  at Bhandup  (East), Survey  No.246 (pt.)  of Kanjur village for construction of housing colony for accommodating the members  of the Society at concessional rates keeping in view the  welfare of the Harijan community.  This order came to be passed by the Government of India on January 18, 1995. It would  appear  that  originally  the  membership  of  the Society consisted  of  28  members  belonging  to  Scheduled Castes [for  short, ’Dalits’]  and 5  O.B.C. members.  It is not in  dispute that  as per  the  bye-laws  the  membership should consist  of 80%  dalits and  20% others.  Originally, the membership  was intended  to be  112.   Consequently, 90 members should  be dalits  and 22  members  should  be  non- dalits.  It is now an admitted position that the respondent- Society does not have 90 dalits members as per the bye-laws. It would  appear that  one Bal  Krishna, who  was  then  the President of  the  Society,  had  invited  applications  for enrolment.   Consequently, 78  persons are said to have made applications for  enrolment.    It  would  appear  that  the Registrar of  Cooperative Societies had directed the Society to enrol  all of  them as  members of the Society.  When the appellant, a member, had objected to the same, the objection was over-ruled,  which was  ultimately negatived by the High Court directing  that all  the 78 persons are directed to be enrolled as  members of  the Society.   Thus  this appeal by special leave.      Shri A.K.  Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for 78 persons and  for the builder contended that no corresponding amendment to  be bye-laws  of the  Society was  made to  the effect that  members of  the Society  should consist  of  90 dalits and  22 others.   In  its absence, the High Court was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

right in  directing to enrol non-dalit members as members of the Society.  We are unable to appreciate the stand.      The very  object of  providing two  acres of prime land belonging to  the Government  is to  ameliorate the economic conditions of the dalits providing right of residence, which is one  of the fundamental and human rights to those persons who cannot  afford to  purchase the  site and  construct the flats thereon.  article 19(1)(e) read with Article 21 of the Constitution provide  right to  residence and  settlement to live with dignity of person - a fundamental and human right. Articles 46,  39 and  enjoin the State to provide facilities and opportunities  of construction  of houses by the Dalits, Tribes and  poor to  enable them  to live  with  dignity  in permanent  abode.     Article   25  [1]   of  the  Universal Declaration f  Human  Rights  and  Article  11  [1]  of  the International Covenant  on  Economic,  Social  and  Cultural Rights, 1966  provides that  everyone has the food, clothing and right  to housing as a part of human right and the State parties recognise  the said right and would take appropriate steps to ensure realisation of the right to housing.      In M/s. Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame & Ors.  [(1990) 1 SCC 520] a three-Judge Bench of this Court while permitting the disposal of the excess urban land under the Urban  Land Ceiling Act held that the basic needs of man have traditionally  been accepted  to be food, clothing  and shelter.   Right to  life is  guaranteed in  every civilised society which  would take  within its  sweep right  to food, clothing   and   decent   environment   and   a   reasonable accommodation  to  live  in.    For  human  being,  suitable accommodation would  allow him  to grow physically, mentally and intellectually.    The  Constitution  aims  at  ensuring fuller development  of every  child which  would be possible only if an appropriate house is provided.      In Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. [(1985)  3 SCC  545] a Constitution Bench of this Court held that  right to life includes right to residence.  Right to residence  is a part of life enshrined in Article 21.  In P.C.Gupta v.  State of  Gujarat &  Ors. [(1995)  Supp. 2 SCC 182] another  Bench of  three Judges of this Court held that right to  residence and  settlement is  a fundamental  right under Article  19 [1]  (e) and protection of life guaranteed by Article  21 encompasses within its ambit right to shelter to enjoy the meaningful right to life.  Right to equality of status and  right to social and economic justice and dignity of person  assures dignity of life guaranteed by article 21. In Chameli  Singh &  Ors. etc. v. State of U.P. & Ant. [1996 (1) SCALE  101] another three-Judge Bench of this Court held that the  right to  economic empowerment  enjoins the  state under Article 46 to promote social, economic and educational interests of  the Dalits,  the Tribes,  the backward classes and  the  poor.    Right  to  social  and  economic  justice conjointly  co-mingles   with  right   to  shelter   as   an inseparable  component   for  meaningful   right  to   life. Providing house  sites and  houses in  implementation of the directives contained  in Articles  28  and  39  [b]  of  the Constitution was  upheld.   In Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu  Barde &  Ant.   [(1995) Supp.  2 SCC 549], this Court  has held  that right  to economic empowerment to the Scheduled  Tribes as  enshrined under  Article 46 of the Constitution is  a fundamental  human right under Article 1, 3, 17, 22 and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right to  Development  to  provide  facilities  and  opportunities consistent with  article 38  of  the  Constitution.    Under Article 39 [b] of the Constitution, the state is enjoined to distribute  the  material  resources  of  the  community  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

subserve the common good.  All human rights are derived from dignity and  worth of  man.  Democracy blossoms the person’s full  freedom  to  achieve  excellence.  the  socio-economic content in directive principles is all pervasive to make the right to life meaningful to all Indian citizens.  Welfare is actually a form of liberty inasmuch as it liberates man from social conditions  which narrow  their choices  and brighten their  self   development  in  a  world  of  vastly  unequal opportunities, where  some are  born into relative affluence and others  into a subsistence economy.  Liberation does not mean providing  mere liberty but facilities to prevent their exploitation through  all legitimate  means so as to relieve the disadvantaged  from perpetual  inequities.  Democracy is workable as  long as  there is  a substantial area of shared values and  aspirations among the people and where they have the maturity to rise above differences.      It was,  therefore, obligated  on the  State to provide adequate means  of livelihood  to all  citizens distributing the material  resources of the community for common welfare. The ultimate  object  of  the  Directive  Principles  is  to liberate the  Indian masses,  free them  from centuries  old coercion,.  ignorance,  abject  conditions  and  to  prevent exploitation.   The Union  of India in implementation of the above  Directive   Principles  in  Article  39  [b]  and  in discharge of  its obligation  under Articles  38 and  46  to provide facilities  and opportunities  to the  Dalits    has allotted two  acres of  land in Bombay City for construction of houses  to  make  their  right  to  settlement  and  life meaningful, to  enable them  to live with dignity of person; and provided  economic empowerment  of settled  residence to enjoy the right to meaningful life.  The benefit of economic empowerment having  been given  to these  members  and  they having secured  the property,  neither the  President of the Society nor  the builder  has any right to induct any member other than  the prescribed  percentage as  per the bye-laws. It is necessary to follow that the Society should consist of 90 Dalit  members and  22 outsiders.  Any contract or action which is  opposed to  constitutional  animation  and  public policy is  void.  The action of the President of the Society and enrolment  of non-dalits  defeats  the  purpose  of  the Government of  India behind giving the land for construction of houses  by dalits.    Therefore,  the  direction  of  the Registrar of  Cooperative Societies  would defeat the public policy.   Any action  taken in  violation thereof  is  void. Accordingly, the  orders of the High Court and the Registrar are unconstitutional and are set aside.      The Registrar  is directed  to conduct  an enquiry  and identify as  to how  many among  78 members  are dalits  and direct their  enrolment as  members of  the  Society.    All others in  excess of  22 of non-dalits consisting of 5 OBCs, initially enrolled  as members  and 17 among the rest of the non-dalits be  enrolled as  members of  the  society.    The Society should  invite applications  from the dalits to make up the  shortfall of  90 dalit members of the Society and to pay the cost of the flats constructed on the land alloted by the Government.   If  non-members have contributed any money for the  construction, it  is obvious that the amount should be returned  to them with interest, Non-dalit members should be accommodated only against the 20% quota available to them on the  basis of  any mode like draw of lots or seniority in the matter  of enrolment  or on  the basis  of promptness in paying the  construction cost  etc. as may be devised by the Registrar.      The Management  of the Society is directed to place the entire material  before the  Registrar.  The Registrar after

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

giving notice  to all  the persons  and hearing  them,  will decide as  to who  are dalits  among 78  persons and who are non-dalits and  decide the  matter accordingly  within three months and submit the report to the Registry of this Court.      The  appeal   is  accordingly   allowed,  but   in  the circumstances without costs.