http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15  

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RATLAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI VARDHICHAND & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/07/1980

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1980 AIR 1622            1981 SCR  (1)  97  1980 SCC  (4) 162  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1981 SC 344  (45)  R          1982 SC 149  (15,607,968)  RF         1986 SC 847  (12)  RF         1991 SC1902  (24)  R          1992 SC 248  (17)

ACT:      Code of  Criminal  Procedure  1973,  s.  133  &  M.  P. Municipalities Act  1961, s.  123-Municipality not providing sanitary facilities  and construction of public conveniences for slum  dwellers-Whether Courts  can compel municipal body to carry  out its duty to the community to provide amenities and abate nuisance.

HEADNOTE:      The residents  (respondents) of a prominent residential locality of the Municipality (petitioner) in their complaint under s.  133 Criminal  Procedure Code to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate averred  that the Municipality had failed despite several pleas, to meet its basic obligations, like provision of sanitary facilities on the roads, public conveniences for slum dwellers  who were using the road for that purpose, and prevention of the discharge from the nearby Alcohol Plant of maladorous fluids  into the  public  street,  and  that  the Municipality  was  oblivious  to  the  statutory  obligation envisaged in s. 123 M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961      The Municipal  Council contested  the petition  on  the ground that  the owners  of houses had gone to that locality on  their   own  choice,   fully  aware  of  the  insanitary conditions and  therefore they  could not  complain. It also pleaded financial difficulties in the construction of drains and provision of amenities.      The Magistrate  found the facts proved, and ordered the municipality to  provide the  amenities  and  to  abate  the nuisance by  constructing drain  pipes with flow of water to wash the  filth and  stop the  stench and that failure would entail prosecution under s. 188 I.P.C.      The order  of the  Magistrate was  found unjustified by the Sessions Court, but upheld by the High Court.      In the  Special Leave  Petition by  the Municipality to this  Court   on  the   question  whether  a  Court  can  by affirmative action  compel a statutory body to carry out its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15  

duty to  the community by constructing sanitation facilities at great cost and on a time-bound basis. ^      HELD :  1. Wherever  there is  a public  nuisance,  the presence of  s. 133 Criminal Procedure Code must be felt and any contrary opinion is contrary to the law. [112D]      2. The public power of the Magistrate under the Code is a public  duty to  the members of the public who are victims of the  nuisance and  so he  shall  exercise,  it  when  the jurisdictional facts are present. [107G] 98      3. The Magistrate’s responsibility under s. 133 Cr.P.C. is to  order removal  of such  nuisance within  a time to be fixed in  the order.  This is  a public duty implicit in the public power  to be  exercised on  behalf of  the public and pursuant to  a public proceeding. Failure to comply with the direction will  be visited with a punishment contemplated by s. 188 I.P.C. [109C-D]      4.  The   Municipal  Commissioner  or  other  executive authority bound by the order under s. 133 Criminal Procedure Code shall  obey  the  direction  because  disobedience,  if causes obstruction  or annoyance  or injury  to any  persons lawfully pursuing  their employment,  shall be punished with simple imprisonment  or fine  as prescribed  in the section. The offence is aggravated if the disobedience tends to cause danger to human health or safety. [109E]      5.  Public   nuisance,  because   of  pollutants  being discharged by  big factories  to the detriment of the poorer sections, is  a challenge to the social justice component of the rule of law. [110C]      6. The  imperative tone  of s.  133 Criminal  Procedure Code read with the punitive temper of s. 188 I.P.C. make the prohibitory act a mandatory duty. [109E]      7.  The   Criminal  Procedure   Code  operates  against statutory bodies  and others regardless of the cash in their coffers,  even  as  human  rights  under  Part  III  of  the Constitution have to be respected by the State regardless of budgetary provision. [108H]      8. Section  123 M.  P. Municipalities  Act 1961  has no saving clause  when  the  municipal  council  is  penniless. [108H]      9. Although  the Cr.P.C.  and  I.P.C.  are  of  ancient vintage the  new social justice orientation imparted to them by the Constitution of India makes them a remedial weapon of versatile use.  Social Justice  is due  to the  people  and, therefore, the  people must  be  able  to  trigger  off  the jurisdiction  vested   for  their   benefit  in  any  public functionary  like   a  Magistrate   under  s.  133  Criminal Procedure Code. In the exercise of such power, the judiciary must be  informed by  the broader  principle  of  access  to justice  necessitated   by  the   conditions  of  developing countries and  obligated by  Art. 38  of  the  Constitution. [109F-G]      10. A responsible municipal council constituted for the precise purpose  of preserving  public health  and providing better finances  cannot run  away from its principal duty by pleading financial  inability. Decency  and dignity are non- negotiable facets  of human rights and are a first charge on local self-governing  bodies. Similarly,  providing drainage systems not pompous and attractive, but in working condition and sufficient  to meet  the needs  of the  people-cannot be evaded if  the municipality  is to  justify  its  existence. [110E]      11. The  Court, armed  with the  provisions of  the two Codes and  justified by  the obligation  under s. 123 of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15  

Act, must  adventure into positive directions as it has done in the  present case.  Section 133  Criminal Procedure  Code authorises the prescription of a time-limit for carrying out the order.  The same  provision spells out the power to give specific directives. [111A-B]      Govind Singh  v. Shanti  Sarup, [1979]  2 SCC  267, 279 referred to.      12. The  state will  realise that  Art. 47  makes it  a paramount principle  of governance  that steps are taken for the improvement  of public  health as  amongst  its  primary duties. The municipality also will slim its budget on 99 low priority  items and  elitist projects to use the savings on sanitation and public health. [114C]      13. Where  Directive Principles  have  found  statutory expression in Do’s and Don’ts the court will not sit idly by and  allow   municipal  government  to  become  a  statutory mockery. The  law will relentlessly be enforced and the plea of poor finance will be poor alibi when people in misery cry for justice. The dynamics of the judicial process have a new ‘enforcement’ dimension  not  merely  through  some  of  the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (as here) but also through activated tort consciousness. The officers in charge and even  the elected  representatives will have to face the penalty of  the law  if what  the Constitution and follow up legislation  direct   them  to   do  are  defied  or  denied wrongfully. The  wages of violation is punishment, corporate and personal. [114G-115A]      [The Court approved a scheme of construction work to be      undertaken by  the Municipality  for the elimination of      the insanitary conditions and directed that the work be      commenced within  two months  and that  the  Magistrate      inspect the progress of the work every three months and      see that it is implemented. [113 D-114 B]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2856 of 1979.      From the  Judgment and  Order  dated  6-8-1979  of  the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. Revision No. 392/76.      Sobhag Mal Jain and S. K. Jain for the Petitioner.      C. S.  Chhazed, Miss  Manisha Gupta and M. S. Gupta for Respondents 1-5.      S. K. Gambhir for the State.      The Order of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER,  J.-‘It is  procedural  rules’,  as  this appeal proves,  ‘which infuse  life into substantive rights, which activate  them to  make them  effective’. Here, before us,  is   what  looks   like  a   pedestrian  quasi-criminal litigation  under   s.  133   Cr.P.C.,  where   the   Ratlam Municipality-the   appellant-challenges    the   sense   and soundness of  the High  Court’s  affirmation  of  the  trial court’s  order   directing  the   construction  of  drainage facilities and  the like,  which has  spiralled up  to  this Court. The truth is that a few profound issues of processual jurisprudence of  great strategic  significance to our legal system face  us and  we must zero-in on them as they involve problems of  access to  justice for  the people  beyond  the blinkered rules  of ‘standing’ of British Indian vintage. If the centre  of gravity  of  justice  is  to  shift,  as  the Preamble to  the Constitution mandates, from the traditional individualism of  locus standi  to the community orientation of  public   interest  litigation,   these  issues  must  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15  

considered. In  that sense,  the case  before us between the Ratlam Municipality and the citizens of 100 a  ward,   is  a   path-finder  in  the  field  of  people’s involvement in  the justicing  process, sans  which as Prof. Sikes points  out,(1) the  system  may  ‘crumble  under  the burden of  its own  insensitivity’. The key question we have to answer  is whether  by affirmative  action  a  court  can compel a  statutory body  to  carry  out  its  duty  to  the community by  constructing sanitation  facilities  at  great cost and  on a  time-bound basis.  At issue is the coming of age of  that branch  of  public  law  bearing  on  community actions and  the court’s  power to force public bodies under public duties  to implement  specific plans  in response  to public grievances.      The circumstances  of the case are typical and overflow the particular  municipality and  the solutions  to the  key questions emerging  from the  matrix of facts are capable of universal  application,   especially  in   the  Third  World humanscape of  silent subjection  of  groups  of  people  to squalor  and   of  callous   public  bodies   habituated  to deleterious inaction.  The Ratlam  municipal town, like many Indian urban  centres, is  populous with human and sub-human species, is  punctuated  with  affluence  and  indigence  in contrasting co-existence,  and keeps public sanitation a low priority item. what with cesspools and filth menacing public health. Ward  No. 12, New Road, Ratlam town is an area where prosperity and  poverty live as strange bedfellows. The rich have bungalows  and toilets,  the poor live on pavements and litter the  street  with  human  excreta  because  they  use roadsides as  latrines in  the absence of public facilities. And the  city fathers  being too  busy with  other issues to bother about  the human  condition,  cesspools  and  stinks, dirtied the place beyond endurance which made the well-to-do citizens protest, but the crying demand for basic sanitation and public  drains fell  on deaf  ears. Another contributory cause to  the insufferable  situation was the discharge from the Alcohol  Plant of  malodorous  fluids  into  the  public street. In  this lawless locale, mosquitoes found a stagnant stream of  stench so hospitable to breeding and flourishing, with no  municipal agent  disturbing their stinging music at human expense. The local denizens, driven by desperation, at long last,  decided to use the law and call the bluff of the municipal  body’s   bovine   indifference   to   its   basic obligations under  s. 123  of the  M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (the Act, for short). That provision casts a mandate:           123. Duties  of Council.-(1)  In addition  to  the      duties imposed  upon it  by or  under this  Act or  any      other enactment  for the  time being in force, it shall      be the duty of a Council to 101      undertake and  make reasonable  and adequate  provision      for the  following matters  within the  limits  of  the      Municipality, namely:         XX                     XX                      XX           (b) cleansing  public streets,  places and sewers,      and all  places, not  being private property, which are      open to the enjoyment of the public whether such places      are vested  in the  Council or  not;  removing  noxious      vegetation, and abating all public nuisances:           (c)  disposing   of  night-soil  and  rubbish  and      preparation  of  compost  manure  from  night-soil  and      rubbish. And yet  the municipality  was obvious  to  this  obligation towards human  well-being and  was directly guilty of breach

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15  

of duty  and public  nuisance and  active neglect.  The  Sub Divisional Magistrate,  Ratlam, was  moved  to  take  action under s.  133 Cr.P.C., to abate the nuisance by ordering the municipality to  construct drain pipes with flow of water to wash the filth and stop the stench. The Magistrate found the facts proved,  made the  direction sought  and scared by the prospect of  prosecution under  s. 188 I.P.C., for violation of the  order under  s. 133 Cr.P.C., the municipality rushed from court  to court  till, at last, years after, it reached this Court  as the  last refuge  of  lost  causes.  Had  the municipal council and its executive officers spent half this litigative zeal  on cleaning  up the street and constructing the drains  by rousing  the people’s  sramdan resources  and laying out  the  city’s  limited  financial  resources,  the people’s needs  might have  been largely  met long  ago. But litigation with other’s funds is an intoxicant, while public service for  common benefit  is an  inspiration; and,  in  a competition between  the  two,  the  former  overpowers  the latter. Not  where  a  militant  people’s  will  takes  over people’s welfare  institutions, energises  the common  human numbers, canalises  their community  consciousness,  forbids the offending  factories  from  polluting  the  environment, forces the  affluent to  contribute wealth  and the indigent their work  and thus  transforms the  area  into  a  healthy locality vibrant  with popular  participation and vigilance, not neglected  ghettoes noisy with squabbles among the slimy slum-dwellers nor  with electoral ’sound and fury signifying nothing.’      The Magistrate,  whose activist  application of  s. 133 Cr.P.C.,  for  the  larger  purpose  of  making  the  Ratlam municipal body  to do  its duty  and abate  the nuisance  by affirmative action,  has our  appreciation. He has summed up the concrete facts which may be usefully quoted in portions:           "New Road, Ratlam, is a very important road and so      many prosperous and educated persons are living on this      Road. On 102 the southern  side of this Road some houses are situated and behind these  houses and  attached to  the College boundary, the Municipality  has constructed  a road  and this new Road touches the  Government College  and its  boundary. Just  in between the  said area a dirty Nala is flowing which is just in the middle of the main road i.e. New Road. In this stream (nala) many  a time  dirty and filthy water of Alcohol Plant having chemical  and obnoxious  smell, is  also released for which the people of that locality and general public have to face most  obnoxious smell.  This Nala  also produces  filth which causes  a bulk  of mosquitoes  breeding. On  this very southern side  of the said road a few days back municipality has also  constructed a  drain but it has (?) constructed it completely but  left the construction in between and in some of the  parts the  drain has  not at  all  been  constructed because of  this the  dirty water  of half constructed drain and septic  tank is  flowing on the open land of applicants, where due  to  insanitation  and  due  to  non-removing  the obstructed earth the water is accumulated in the pits and it also creates  dirt and  bad smell and produces mosquitoes in large quantities.  This water also goes to nearby houses and causes harm to them. For this very reason the applicants and the other  people of  that locality  are unable  to live and take rest in their respective houses. This is also injurious to health". There are  more dimensions  to the  environmental  pollution which the magistrate points out:      "A large area of this locality is having slums where no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15  

facility of lavatories is supplied by the municipality. Many such people  live in  these slums  who relieve their lateral dirt on  the bank of drain or on the adjacent land. This way an open  latrine is  created by  these people.  This creates heavy dirt  and mosquitoes.  The drains constructed in other part of  this Mohalla  are also  not proper it does not flow the water  properly and  it creates the water obnoxious. The Malaria Department  of  the  State  of  M.P.  also  pays  no attention in  this direction.  The non-applicants  have  not managed the  drains, Nallahs and Naliyan properly and due to incomplete construction  the  non-applicants  have  left  no outlet for the rainy water. Owing to above reasons the water is accumulated  on the  main road,  it passes through living houses, sometimes  snakes and  scorpions come  out and  this obstruct the  people to  pass through  this road.  This also causes financial  loss to  the people of this area. The road constructed by  Nagarpalika is  on a  high level  and due to this, this year more 103      water entered the houses of this locality and it caused      this year  more harm  and loss to the houses also. This      way  all   works  done   by  the   non-applicants  i.e.      construction of  drain, canal  and road come within the      purview of  public nuisance.  The  non-applicants  have      given  no   response  to   the  difficulties   of   the      applicants, and  non-applicants are  careless in  their      duties towards the public, for which without any reason      the applicants  are facing the intolerable nuisance. In      this relation  the people  of this  locality  submitted      their  returns,   notices  and   given  their  personal      appearance also  to the  non-applicants  but  the  non-      applicants are shirking from their responsibilities and      try  to   avoid  their   duty  by   showing  other  one      responsible  for   the  same,   whereas  all  the  non-      applicants are responsible for the public nuisance."      Litigation is  traumatic and  so the local people asked first for  municipal remedies  failing which  they moved for magisterial remedies:           "At the  last the  applicants requested  to remove      all the  nuisance stated  in their main application and      they also  requested that under-mentioned works must be      done by  the  non-applicants  and  for  which  suitable      orders may be issued forthwith:           1. The  drains  constructed  by  Municipality  are      mismanaged and  incomplete, they  should be managed and      be completed  and flow of water in the drains should be      made so  that the  water may  pass  through  the  drain      without obstruction.           2. The  big pits  and  earthen  drains  which  are      situated near  the College  boundary and on the corners      of the road where dirty water usually accumulates, they      should  be  closed  and  the  filth  shall  be  removed      therefrom.           3. The  big ’Nala’  which is  in between the road,      should be  managed and covered in this way that it must      not create overflow in the rainy season.           4. The  Malaria Department  should be  ordered  to      sprinkle D.D.T.  and act  in such a manner and use such      means  so   that  the   mosquitoes  may  be  eradicated      completely from the said locality."      The proceedings show the justness of the grievances and the indifference of the local body:           "Both the  parties heard.  The court was satisfied      on the facts contained in their application dated 12-5-      72 and granted conditional order against non-applicants

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15  

    No. 1  and 2  u/s 133  of Cr.  P.C. (Old Code). In this      order all  the nuisances  were  described  (which  were      there in their main application) and the court directed      to remove 104      all the  nuisances within  15  days  and  if  the  non-      applicants  have   any  objection   or  dissatisfaction      against the  order then  they must  file it on the next      date of hearing in the court."           XX                    XX                     XX           "The  applicants   got  examined   the   following      witnesses  in   their  evidence   and  after  producing      following documents they closed their evidence."           XX                    XX                     XX           "No  evidence   has  been  produced  by  the  non-      applicants  in   spite   of   giving   them   so   many      opportunities. Both  the parties  heard and I have also      inspected the site."           XX                    XX                    XX           "The non-applicant  (Municipal Council) has sought      six times to produce evidence but all in vain. Likewise      non-applicant  (Town   Improvement  Trust)   has   also      produced no evidence."           The  Nallah   comes   into   picture   after   the      construction of  road and  bridge. It  has  shown  that      Nallah is  property of  Nagarpalika according  to Ex.p.      10. Many  applications were  submitted  to  remove  the      nuisance but without result. According to Sec. 32 to 43      of the Town Improvement Trust Act, it is shown, that it      has only  the provisions  to make  plans. Many  a  time      people tried  to attract  the  attention  of  Municipal      Council and  the Town  Improvement Trust  but the  non-      applicants always  tried to throw the responsibility on      one another shoulder.        XX                  XX                        XX           It is  submitted by  non-applicant  (Municipality)      that the  said Nallah  belongs to  whom,  it  is  still      disputed i.e.  whether it belongs to non-applicant 1 or      2.  Shastri   Colony  is   within  the   area  of  Town      Improvement Trust.  The Nagarpalika  (non-applicant No.      1) is  financially very  weak. But Municipal Council is      not careless towards its duties.           Non-applicant (Town Improvement Trust) argued that      primary responsibility  lies with the Municipal Council      only. There is no drainage system.      At the end of it all, the Court recorded:           ............... after  considering all the facts I      come to  this conclusion  that the said dirty Nallah is      in between  the main  road of  Ratlam City.  This dirty      Nallah affects the Mohalla of New 105      Road, Shastri  Colony, Volga  Talkies and it is just in      the heart  of the city. This is the very important road      and is  between the  Railway Station and the main city.      In these  mohallas, cultured  and educated  people  are      living. The  Nallah which flows in between the New Road      and Shastri Colony the water is not flowing rapidly and      on many  places there  are deep pits in which the dirty      water is  accumulated. The  Nallah is also not straight      that is also the reason of accumulation of dirty water.      The  Nallah   is  not  managed  properly  by  the  non-      applicants. It  is unable  to gush  the rainy water and      due to  this the  adjoining areas  always  suffer  from      over-flowing of the water and it causes the obstruction      to the pedestrians.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15  

        XX                    XX                     XX           It is  also proved  by the  evidence given  by the      applicants that  from time  to time  the Power  Alcohol      factory which  is situated  outside the premises of the      Municipal Council  and it  flows its  dirty and  filthy      water into  the said  Nallah,  due  to  this  also  the      obnoxious smell is spreading throughout the New Road or      so it  is the bounden duty of the Municipal Council and      the Town  Improvement Trust  to do  the needful in this      respect.          XX                     XX                      XX           The dirty  water which  flows from  the lavatories      and urinals  of the  residential houses  have no outlet      and due  to this  reason there  are many  pits  on  the      southern side of the New Road and all the pits are full      of dirty  and stinking  water. So it is quite necessary      to construct  an outlet for the dirty water in the said      locality.           In this area many a places have no drainage system      and if  there is  any drain  it has  no proper flow and      water never  passes through  the drain  properly.  That      causes the  accumulation of  water and  by the  time it      becomes dirty and stink and then it produces mosquitoes      there.      The Magistrate held in the end:           Thus after  perusing the  evidence I  come to this      conclusion  and   after   perusing   the   applications      submitted by  the persons residing on the New Road area      from time  to time  to draw  the attention  of the non-      applicants to  remove the  nuisance, the non-applicants      have taken  no steps  whatsoever to  remove  all  these      public nuisances.      He issued  the following  order which was wrongly found unjustified by the Sessions Court, but rightly upheld by the High Court: 106           Therefore, for  the health  and convenience of the      people residing  in that  particular area  of  all  the      nuisance must  be removed  and for  that the  following      order is hereby passed:           (1) The  Town Improvement  Trust with  the help of      Municipal Council must prepare a permanent plan to make      the proper  flow in the said Nallah which is flowing in      between Shastri  Colony and  New Road.  Both  the  non-      applicants must  prepare the plan within six months and      they must  take proper  action to  give it  a  concrete      form.           (2)  According   to  para  13  a  few  places  are      described which  are either  having the same drains and      the other  area is  having no drain and due to this the      water stinks  there; so  the Municipal  Council and the      Town  Improvement   Trust  must  construct  the  proper      drainage system  and within  their own  premises  where      there is  no drain  it must  be constructed immediately      and all  this  work  should  be  completed  within  six      months.           (3) The  Municipal Council should construct drains      from the jail to the bridge behind the southern side of      the houses  so that  the water  flowing from the septic      tanks  and   the  other   water  flowing   outside  the      residential houses  may be channellised and it may stop      stinking and  it should  have a proper flow so that the      water may  go easily towards the main Nallah. All these      drains should  be  constructed  completely  within  six      months by the Municipal Council.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15  

         (4) The places where the pits are in existence the      same should  be covered  with mud so that the water may      not accumulate  in those  pits and  it  may  not  breed      mosquitoes. The  Municipal Council  must complete  this      work within two months.           A  notice   under  Section  141  of  the  Criminal      Procedure Code  (Old Code)  may be  issued to  the non-      applicants Nos.  1 and  2 so  that all the works may be      carried out  within  the  stipulated  period.  Case  is      hereby finalised.      Now that  we have a hang of the case we may discuss the merits, legal and factual. If the factual findings are good- and we  do not  re-evaluate them in the Supreme Court except in exceptional  cases- one  wonders  whether  our  municipal bodies are  functional irrelevances, banes rather than booms and ’lawless’  by long neglect, not leaders of the people in local  self-government.  It  may  be  a  cynical  obiter  of pervasive veracity  that municipal  bodies minus  the people and plus  the bureaucrats  are the  bathetic vogue-no better than when the British were here: 107      We proceed  on the  footing, as  we indicated even when leave to  appeal was  sought, that  the malignant  facts  of municipal callousness  to public health and sanitation, held proved by  the Magistrate,  are true.   What  are the  legal pleas to absolve the municipality from the court’s directive under s. 133 Cr.P.C. ? That provision reads:           s. 133(1) whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-      Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate      specially  empowered   in  this  behalf  by  the  State      Government, on receiving the report of a police officer      or other  information and  on taking  such evidence (if      any) as he thinks fit, considers-           (a)   that any  unlawful obstruction  or  nuisance                should be  removed from  any public  place or                from any  way, river  or channel  which is or                may be lawfully used by the public;         XX                     XX                      XX      such Magistrate  may make a conditional order requiring      the person  causing such  obstruction or  nuisance,  or      carrying on  such trade  or occupation,  or keeping any      such goods  or merchandise,  or owning,  possessing  or      controlling such  building, tent, structure, substance,      tank, well  or excavation  or owning or possessing such      animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order-           (i) to remove such obstruction or nuisance; or             XX                      XX                   XX            (iii) to prevent or stop the construction of such                building, or  to alter  the disposal  of such                substance; or  if he  objects so  to  do,  to                appear before himself or some other Executive                Magistrate subordinate  to him  at a time and                place to  be fixed  by the  order,  and  show                cause, in  the manner  hereinafter  provided.                why the order should not be made absolute.      So the  guns of s. 133 go into action wherever there is public nuisance.  The public  power of  the Magistrate under the Code  is a  public duty to the members of the public who are victims  of the  nuisance, and  so he  shall exercise it when the  jurisdictional facts  are present  as  here.  "All power is  a trust-that  we are accountable for its exercise- that, from  the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must  exist."(i) Discretion  becomes  a  duty  when  the beneficiary brings  home the  circumstances for  its  benign exercise.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15  

    If the  order is defied or ignored, s. 188 I.P.C. comes into penal play: 108           188.  Whoever,   knowing   that,   by   an   order      promulgated by  a public  servant lawfully empowered to      promulgate such  order, he is directed to obtain from a      certain act,  or to  take certain  order  with  certain      property in  his possession  or under  his  management,      disobeys such direction           and if  such disobedience causes or tends to cause      danger to  human life  health or  safety, or  causes or      tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with      imprisonment of either description for a term which may      extend to  six months, or with fine which may extend to      one thousand rupees, or with both.      There  is   no  difficulty  in  locating  who  has  the obligation to abate the public nuisance caused by absence of primary  sanitary   facilities.  Section   123,   which   is mandatory, (we repeat), reads:           123. Duties  of Council  :-(1) In  addition to the      duties imposed  upon it  by or  under this  Act or  any      other enactment  for the  time being in force, it shall      be  the  duty  of  a  Council  to  undertake  and  make      reasonable and  adequate provision  for  the  following      matters within the limits of the Municipality, namely:-           (a)..............           (b)   cleansing public streets, places and sewers,                and all  places not  being private  property,                which are open to the enjoyment of the public                whether such places are vested in the Council                or  not;  removing  noxious  vegetation,  and                abating all public nuisances;           (c)   disposing  of  night-soil  and  rubbish  and                preparation of compost manure from night-soil                and rubbish.      The   statutory   setting   being   thus   plain,   the municipality    cannot    extricate    itself    from    its responsibility. Its plea is not that the facts are wrong but that the  law is not right because the municipal funds being insufficient it  cannot carry out the duties under s. 123 of the Act.  This ’alibi’  made us  issue notice  to the  State which is  now represented  by counsel,  Shri Gambhir, before us. The  plea of  the municipality  that notwithstanding the public nuisance  financial inability  validly exonerates  it from  statutory   liability  has  no  juridical  basis.  The Criminal Procedure  Code operates  against statutory  bodies and others  regardless of the cash in their coffers, even as human rights  under Part  III of the Constitution have to be respected by  the State  regardless of  budgetary provision. Likewise, s.  123 of  the Act  has no saving clause when the municipal council is penniless. Otherwise, a profligate 109 statutory  body   or  pachydermic  governmental  agency  may legally defy  duties under the law by urging in self-defence a self-created  bankruptcy or  perverted expenditure budget. That cannot be.      Section  133   Cr.P.C.  is  categoric,  although  reads discretionary.  Judicial   discretion  when  facts  for  its exercise are  present, has  a mandatory  import.  Therefore, when the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratlam, has, before him, information and  evidence, which disclose the existence of a public nuisance  and, on  the materials placed, he considers that such unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any  public place  which may  be lawfully  used by  the public, he  shall  act.  Thus,  his  judicial  power  shall,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15  

passing  through   the  procedural  barrel,  fire  upon  the obstruction or  nuisance, triggered  by  the  jurisdictional facts. The  Magistrate’s responsibility under s. 133 Cr.P.C. is to  order removal  of such  nuisance within  a time to be fixed in  the order.  This is  a public duty implicit in the public power  to be  exercised on  behalf of  the public and pursuant to  a public proceeding. Failure to comply with the direction will  be visited with a punishment contemplated by s. 188 I.P.C. Therefore, the Municipal Commissioner or other executive authority  bound by the order under s. 133 Cr.P.C. shall obey  the direction because disobedience, if it causes obstruction or  annoyance or  injury to any persons lawfully pursuing their  employment, shall  be punished  with  simple imprisonment or  fine as  prescribed  in  the  Section.  The offence is  aggravated if  the disobedience  tends to  cause danger to  human health or safety. The imperative tone of s. 133 Cr.P.C.  read with  the punitive temper of s. 188 I.P.C. make the prohibitory act a mandatory duty.      Although these  two Codes  are of  ancient vintage, the new social  justice orientation  imparted  to  them  by  the Constitution  of   India  makes  it  a  remedial  weapon  of versatile use.  Social justice  is due  to the  people  and, therefore, the  people must  be  able  to  trigger  off  the jurisdiction  vested   for  their   benefit  in  any  public functionary like  a Magistrate  under s.  133 Cr.P.C. In the exercise of  such power,  the judiciary  must be informed by the broader  principle of  access to justice necessitated by the conditions of developing countries and obligated by Art. 38 of  the Constitution.  This brings  Indian public law, in its processual  branch, in  line with the statement of Prof. Kojima :(1)  "the urgent  need is  to focus  on the ordinary man-one might  say the little man..." "Access to Justice" by Cappelletti and B. Garth summarises the new change thus:(2) 110           "The recognition  of this  urgent need  reflects a      fundamental  change   in  the  concept  of  "procedural      justice"... The  new  attitude  to  procedural  justice      reflects what  Professor Adolf  Homburger has called "a      radical change  in the  hierarchy of  values served  by      civil procedure"; the paramount concern is increasingly      with "social  justice," i.e.,  with finding  procedures      which are  conducive to  the pursuit  and protection of      the rights  of ordinary  people. While the implications      of this  change are  dramatic-for instance,  insofar as      the role  of the  adjudicator is  concerned-it is worth      emphasizing at  the outset  that the core values of the      more traditional  procedural justice  must be retained.      "Access  to  justice"  must  encompass  both  forms  of      procedural justice."      Public nuisance, because of pollutants being discharged by big factories to the detriment of the poorer sections, is a challenge  to the  social justice component of the rule of law. Likewise,  the grievous failure of local authorities to provide the  basic amenity of public conveniences drives the miserable slum-dwellers  to ease  in the streets, on the sly for a  time, and  openly thereafter,  because under Nature’s pressure,  bashfulness   becomes  a  luxury  and  dignity  a difficult art.  A responsible  municipal council constituted for the  precise purpose  of preserving  public  health  and providing better finances cannot run away from its principal duty by  pleading financial  inability. Decency  and dignity are non-negotiable  facets of  human rights  and are a first charge on  local self-governing bodies. Similarly, providing drainage systems- not pompous and attractive, but in working condition and  sufficient to  meet the  needs of the people-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15  

cannot be  evaded if  the municipality  is  to  justify  its existence. A  bare study  of the  statutory provisions makes this position clear.      In this  view, the  Magistrate’s approach appears to be impeccable  although   in  places  he  seems  to  have  been influenced by  the fact  that "cultured and educated people" live in this area and "New Road, Ratlam" is a very important road and  so many prosperous and educated persons are living on this road. In India ’one man, one value’ is the democracy of remedies  and rich  or poor  the law  will call  to order where people’s  rights are  violated. What  should also have been emphasised was the neglect of the Malaria Department of the  State   of  Madhya  Pradesh  to  eliminate  mosquitoes, especially with open drains, heaps of dirt, public excretion by humans  for want  of lavatories  and  slums  nearby,  had created an intolerable situation for habitation. An order to abate the  nuisance by  taking affirmative action on a time- bound basis is justified in the circumstances. The nature of the judicial  process is  not purely  adjudicatory nor is it functionally that of an umpire only. 111 Affirmative action  to make  the remedy  effective is of the essence  of  the  right  which  otherwise  becomes  sterile. Therefore, the  court, armed  with the provisions of the two Codes and  justified by  the obligation  under s. 123 of the Act, must  adventure into positive directions as it has done in the  present case.  Section 133  Cr.P.C.  authorises  the prescription of a time-limit for carrying out the order. The same  provision  spells  out  the  power  to  give  specific directives. We  see no  reason to disagree with the order of the Magistrate.      The High  Court has  taken a  correct view and followed the observations  of this  Court in  Govind Singh  v. Shanti Sarup(1) where it has been observed:           "We are  of the  opinion that  in a matter of this      nature where  what is  involved is not merely the right      of a  private individual  but the  health,  safety  and      convenience of  the public  at large,  the safer course      would be  to accept the view of the learned Magistrate,      who saw  for himself  the  hazard  resulting  from  the      working of the bakery."      We agree with the High Court in rejecting the plea that the time  specified in  the order is unworkable. The learned judges have rightly said.           "It  is  unfortunate  that  such  contentions  are      raised in 1979 when these proceedings have been pending      since 1972.  If in  seven  year’s  time  the  Municipal      Council intended  to remedy  such a  small matter there      would have been no difficulty at all. Apart from it, so      far  as  the  directions  are  concerned,  the  learned      Magistrate, it  appears,  was  reasonable.  So  far  as      direction No.  1 is  concerned, the  learned Magistrate      only  expected  the  Municipal  Council  and  the  Town      Improvement  Trust  to  evolve  a  plan  and  to  start      planning  about  it  within  six  months:  the  learned      Magistrate has  rightly not fixed the time limit within      which  that   plan  will  be  completed.  Nothing  more      reasonable could be said about direction No. 1."      A strange plea was put forward by the Municipal Council before the  High Court which was justly repelled, viz., that the owners  of houses had gone to that locality on their own choice with  eyes open and, therefore, could not complain if human excreta  was flowing,  dirt was  stinking,  mosquitoes were multiplying  and health was held hostage. A public body constituted for  the principal  statutory duty  of  ensuring

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15  

sanitation and  health cannot  outrage the  court by such an ugly plea. 112 Luckily, no  such contention  was advanced  before  us.  The request  for   further  time   for  implementation   of  the Magistrate’s order  was turned  down by the High Court since no specific  time-limit was accepted by the municipality for fulfillment of the directions. A doleful statement about the financial difficulties of the municipality and the assurance that construction  of drains  would be  taken up  as soon as possible had no meaning. The High Court observed:           "Such assurances,  it appears,  are of no avail as      unfortunately these proceedings for petty little things      like clearing  of dirty  water, closing  the  pits  and      repairing of  drains have  taken more  than seven years      and if  these seven  years are not sufficient to do the      needful, one  could understand  that by  granting  some      more time it could not be done." The High  Court was  also right  in rejecting the Additional Sessions Judge’s  recommendation to  quash the  Magistrate’s order on  the impression that s. 133 Cr.P.C. did not provide for enforcement  of civic rights. Wherever there is a public nuisance, the  presence of  s. 133  Cr.P.C. must be felt and any contrary  opinion is  contrary to  the law. In short, we have no hesitation in upholding the High Court’s view of the law and affirmation of the Magistrate’s order.      Before us  the major endeavour of the municipal council was to  persuade  us  to  be  pragmatic  and  not  to  force impracticable orders  on it  since it  had no wherewithal to execute the order. Of course, we agree that law is realistic and not  idealistic and what cannot be performed under given circumstances cannot  be prescribed  as a norm to be carried out. From that angle it may well be that while upholding the order of  the Magistrate,  we may  be inclined to tailor the direction to make it workable. But first things first and we cannot consent  to a value judgment where people’s health is a low  priority. Nevertheless,  we are willing to revise the order into  a workable  formula the  implementation of which would be watch-dogged by the court.      Three proposals  have been  put forward  before  us  in regard to  the estimated  cost of  the scheme as directed by the Magistrate.  The Magistrate  had  not  adverted  to  the actual cost of the scheme nor the reasonable time that would be taken to execute it. As stated earlier it is necessary to ascertain how  far the  scheme is feasible and how heavy the cost is  likely to  be. The Court must go further to frame a scheme and  then fix time-limits and even oversee the actual execution of  the scheme  in  compliance  with  the  court’s order.      Three schemes placed before us, together with tentative estimates of  the costs, have been looked into by us. Judges are laymen  and cannot  put on  expert airs. That was why we allowed the municipality 113 and the respondents to produce before us schemes prepared by expert engineers so that we may modify the directions issued by the  Magistrate suitably. Scheme ’A’ is stated to cost an estimated amount  of Rs.  1.016 crores. The State Government has revised  this proposal and brought down the cost. In our view, what  is important is to see that the worst aspects of the insanitary  conditions are  eliminated, not that a showy scheme  beyond   the  means  of  the  municipality  must  be undertaken and  half done. From that angle we approve scheme ’C’ which costs only around Rs. 6 lakhs. We fix a time limit of one  year for  completing execution of the work according

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15  

to that  scheme. We  further direct  that the  work shall be begun within two months from to-day and the Magistrate shall inspect the  progress of the work every three months broadly to be  satisfied that  the order  is being  implemented bona fide. Breaches  will be  visited with  the penalty of s. 188 I.P.C.      We make  the further  supplementary directions which we specifically enjoin  upon the  municipal authority  and  the State Government to carry out.      1.    We  direct the  Ratlam Municipal  Council (R1) to           take  immediate   action,  within   its  statutory           powers, to  stop the  effluents from  the  Alcohol           Plant  flowing   into  the   street.   The   State           Government also  shall take  action  to  stop  the           pollution. The Sub Divisional Magistrate will also           use his  power under  s. 133  I.P.C., to abate the           nuisance so  caused. Industries cannot make profit           at the  expense of  public  health.  Why  has  the           Magistrate not pursued this aspect ?      2.    The  Municipal Council  shall, within  six months           from to-day,  construct  a  sufficient  number  of           public  latrines   for  use   by  men   and  women           separately, provide  water supply  and  scavenging           service  morning  and  evening  so  as  to  ensure           sanitation. The Health Officer of the Municipality           will furnish  a report,  at the  end of  the  six-           monthly term, that the work has been completed. We           need hardly  say that  the local  people  will  be           trained in  using and  keeping  these  toilets  in           clean  condition.  Conscious  cooperation  of  the           consumers is  too important  to  be  neglected  by           representative bodies.      3.       The   State  Government   will  give   special           instructions to  the Malaria  Eradication Wing  to           stop  mosquito   breeding  in  Ward  12.  The  Sub           Divisional Magistrate will issue directions to the           officer concerned  to file  a report before him to           the  effect   that  the  work  has  been  done  in           reasonable time.      4.    The  municipality will  not merely  construct the           drains but  also fill  up cesspools and other pits           of filth and use its sanitary 114           staff to keep the place free from accumulations of           filth. After all, what it lays out on prophylactic           sanitation is a gain on its hospital budget.      5.    We  have no  hesitation in  holding that if these           directions  are   not  complied   with   the   Sub           Divisional Magistrate  will prosecute the officers           responsible. Indeed, this court will also consider           action to punish for contempt in case of report by           the Sub Divisional Magistrate of willful breach by           any officer.      We  are  sure  that  the  State  Government  will  make available by way of loans or grants sufficient financial aid to the  Ratlam Municipality  to  enable  it  to  fulfil  its obligations under  this order.  The State  will realise that Art. 47  makes it  a paramount  principle of governance that steps are  taken ’for  the improvement  of public  health as amongst its primary duties’. The municipality also will slim its budget on low priority items and elitist projects to use the savings  on sanitation  and public health. It is not our intention that  the ward  which has  woken up  to its rights alone need  be  afforded  these  elementary  facilities.  We expect all the wards to be benefited without litigation. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15  

pressure of the judicial process, expensive and dilatory, is neither necessary  nor desirable  if responsible  bodies are responsive to  duties. Cappelletti holds good for India when he observes :(1)      "Our  judicial  system  has  been  aptly  described  as follows:           Admirable though  it may  be, (it) is at once slow      and costly.  It is  a finished product of great beauty,      but entails  an immense  sacrifice of  time, money  and      talent.      This "beautiful"  system is  frequently  a  luxury;  it      tends to  give a high quality of justice only when, for      one  reason   or  another,  parties  can  surmount  the      substantial barriers which it erects to most people and      to many types of claims." Why drive  common people  to public  interest action ? Where Directive Principles have found statutory expression in Do’s and Dont’s  the  court  will  not  sit  idly  by  and  allow municipal government  to become a statutory mockery. The law will relentlessly  be enforced  and the plea of poor finance will be  poor alibi  when people  in misery cry for justice. The dynamics of the judicial process has a new ’enforcement’ dimension not  merely through  some of the provisions of the Criminal  Procedure   Code  (as   here),  but  also  through activated tort  consciousness. The  officers in  charge  and even the elected representatives will have 115 to face  the penalty of the law if what the Constitution and follow-up legislation direct them to do are defied or denied wrongfully. The  wages of violation is punishment, corporate and personal.      We  dismiss   this  petition  subject  to  the  earlier mentioned modifications. N.V.K.                                   Petition dismissed. 116