Supreme Court of India
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RATLAMversusSHRI VARDHICHAND & ORS.
- Citation
- 1980 INSC 138
- Decided
- 29 July 1980
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- V R KRISHNA IYER
Holding
A magistrate’s order under s.133 CrPC directing a municipal body to remove a public nuisance is mandatory and enforceable, and the municipality cannot rely on financial constraints to evade its statutory duties under s.123 M.P. Municipalities Act.
Summary
Residents of Ratlam filed a complaint under s.133 of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging that the Municipal Council had failed to provide sanitary facilities, construct drainage, and stop industrial discharge, creating a public nuisance. The Sub‑Divisional Magistrate ordered the municipality to construct drains, provide public latrines and stop the nuisance, threatening prosecution under s.188 IPC for non‑compliance. The municipality appealed, claiming financial inability and that the order was beyond its statutory powers. The Supreme Court held that s.133 CrPC imposes a mandatory duty to abate public nuisance and that the municipality cannot escape its obligations under s.123 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, regardless of budgetary constraints. The Court upheld the magistrate’s order, modified the scheme to a feasible one, set a one‑year deadline, and directed the State to assist financially. The petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a court can compel a municipal body to perform its statutory duty of providing sanitation facilities through affirmative action.
- Whether financial inability of a municipal corporation is a valid defence against orders under s.133 CrPC and s.123 M.P. Municipalities Act.
- Whether s.133 CrPC is enforceable against statutory bodies and can be used to abate public nuisance.
- Whether the order of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate directing construction of drainage and sanitation facilities is valid and enforceable.
Legislation cited
Subjects
public nuisancemunicipal dutysanitationaffirmative actionenvironmental lawaccess to justicedirective principlespublic health
Judgment
97
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RATLAM A
v.
SHRI VARDHICHAND & ORS. B
July 29, 19so
I
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY· JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s. 133 & M. P. Municipalities Act 1961, c
s. 123-Municipa/ity 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.
The residents (r~spondents) of a prominent residential locality of the
Municipality (petitioner) in their complaint under s. 133 Criminal Procedure D
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 preventio~ 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 E
of the insanitary conditions and therefore they could not complain. It also
pleaded financial difficulties in the construction of drains and provision ot
amenities.
The Magistrate found the facts prove~, artd ordered the municipality to
provide the amenities and to abate the nuisance ·by constructing drain pipes F
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
G
question whether a Court can by affirmative action 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.
HELD : 1. Wherever there is a public nuisance, the presence of s. 133
Criminal Procedure Code must be felt and any contrary opinicn is contrary
to the Jaw. [112D] H
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 nuisanc.i and so he shail
exercise, it when the jurisdictional facts arc present. [1070]
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981) 1 S.C.R.
A 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
B the order under s. 133 Criminal Procedure Code shall obey the direction_
because disobedience, if causes obstruction or annoyance or injury to any
p~rsons lawfully pursuing their employment, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment or fine as prescribed in the section. The offence is aggrav~ted
if the disobedience tends to cause danger to human health or safety.
[109E]
5. Public nuisance, because of pollutants being d:ischarged by big factories
to the detriment of the poorer sections, is a challenge to the social justice
C component of the rule of law. [1 lOC] •
6. The imperative tone of s. 133 Criminal Procedure Code read with
the punitive temper of s. 188 l.P.C. make the prohibitory act a mandatory
duty. [109~]
7. The Criminal Procedure Code operates against statutory bodies and
others regardless of the cash in their coffers, even as human rights under Part
D III of the Constitution have to be respected by the Stai:e 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 l.P.C. are of ancient vintage the new social
justice orientation imparted to them by the Constitution of India makes them
E a remedial weapon of versatile use. Social Justice is due to the people and,
therefore, the people must qe 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]
F 10. A responsible municipal council constituted for the precise purpose ot
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 l11cal self-
goveming bodies. Similarly, providing drainage systems :10t pompws and
attractive, but in working condition and sufficient to meet the needs of the
G people-cannot be evaded if the municipality is to justify its existence. [llOE]
l l. The Court, armed with the provisions of the two Codes and justified \.--
by the obligation under s. l 23 of the 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. [lllA-B]
H Govind Singh v. S1zanti 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 8lim its buJget on
.'.MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. SHRI VARDHICHAND (Krishna Iyer. J.) 99
• 1ow priority items and elitist projects to use the savings oh sanitation and
public health. [114C]
A
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 B
merely through some of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (as
'here) but also through activated tort consciousness. The officers in charll,e
iand 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. J'he wages of violation is punishment, corporate and
::Personal. [114G-115A]
[The Court approved a scheme of construction work to be undertaken by c
.the Municipality for the elimination of the insanitary conditions and directed
ihat 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
iimplemented. [113 D-114 BJ
:CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
No. 2856 of 1979. D
From the Judgment and O~der 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. E
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
F
them effecHve'. 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 G
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
.iindian vintage. If ·the centre of gravity of justice is to shift, as the
Preamble to the Constitution mandates, from the traditional
iindividualism of locus standi to the community orientation of ·public H
':interest litigation, these issues must be considered. In that sense, the
.case before us between the Ratlam Municipality and the citizens of
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.
A a ward, is a path-finder in the field of people's involvement in the
justicing -process, sans which as Prot Sikes points out,(') 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
lean compel a statutory body to carry out its duty to the community
by constructing sanitation facilities at great wit and on a time-bound
B 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.
c The circumstances of the case are typical and overflow the
par.ticular 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,.
D is populous with 1 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 cess-pools and filth
menacing public health. Ward No. 12, New Road, Ratlam town
is an area where prosperity and poverty live as strange bedfollows.
The rich have bungalows and ·toilets, the poor live on pavements .and
E 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 bask
sanitation and public drains fell on deaf ears. :Another contribmory
F
cause to the insufferable situation was the discharge from the Alcohol<
Plant of malodorous fluids into the public street. In this lawless
locale, mosqtiHoes 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
G desperation, at long last, decided to use the law and call the bluff
of the municipal body's bovine indifference to its basic obliga.tions.
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.
H 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-
(l)Melvyn P. Sikes, Administration of Injustice.
MUNICIPAL. COUNCIL. v. SHRI VARDHICHAND (Krishna Iyer. J.) 101
undertake and make reasonable and adequate provision for the A
following matters within the limits of the Municipality, namely:
__.._I
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 aU 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 obliga1ion towards
Jmman well-being and was directly guilty of breach of duty and public
c
nuisance and active neglect. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ratlam,
was moved to take action under s. 133 Cr.P.C. to abate the nuisance
1
by ordering the municipality to construct drain pipes with flow of
wate~ to wash the1 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 E
limited financial resources, the people's needs might have been iargely
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 F
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 ~hettoes noisy
with squabbles among the slimy slum-dwellers nor with electoral
.G
'sound and fury signifying nothing.'
The Magistrate, whose activist applica'tion of s. 133 Cr.P.C., for
the larger purpose of making the Ratlani 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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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 filtl;i 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. Thi~ water
also goes to nearby houses and causes harm to them. For this
very reason the applicants and the other people of that locaUty
are unable to live and take rest in their respective houses. This
is also injurious ·to health".
E
There are more dimensions to the environmental polluti011 which
the magistrate points out:
.F
"A large area of this locality is having slums where no 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
1
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
·G 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
H obstruct the people to pass through this road. This also causes
financial loss to the people of this area. The road conslructed
by Nagarpalika is on a high level and due to this, this year more'
. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. SHRI VARDHICHAND (Krishna Iyer, J.j 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."
c
Litigation is traumatic and so the local people asked first for muni-
cipal 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- D
mentioned works must be done by the .non-applicants and for
~hich 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.
E1
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 dosed 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 ll1anner and use such means so that the
mosquitoes may be eradicated completely from the said Iocality."
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 No. 1 and 2 u/s 133 of Cr. P.C~ (Old H
.Code). In this 'order all the nuisances were described (which were
there in their main application) and the court dire<:J:ed to• remove·
104 SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.
A all the nuisances within 15 days and if the non-applicants have
any objection or dis-satisfaction 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
B 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
c 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."
D
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 t"
remove the nuisance but without result. According to Sec. 32 to
43 of the Town Improvement Trust Act, it is shown, that it has
E only the provisions to make plans. Many a time people tried t"
attract the attention of Municipal Council and the Town
Improvement Trust but the non-applicants always tried to throw
the responsiHility on one another shoulder.
xx xx xx
F 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
1
towards its duties.
G
Non-applicant (Town Improvement Trust) argued that primary
responsibility lies with the Municipal Council only. There is no "r
drainage system.
At the end of it all, the Court recorded :
H ............... after considering all the facts I come to this
conclusion that the said dirty Nallah is in between tl~e main road
of Ratlam City. This dirty Nallah affects the Mohalla of New
-----------------
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. SHRI VARDHICHAND (Krishna Iyer. J.) 105
Road, Shastri Colony, Volga Talkies and it is just in the heart A
-0f the city. This is tae v~.y 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 B
.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 caus~s the obstruction to
the pedestrians.
xx xx· xx c
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 D
duty of the Municipal Council and 1he Town Improvement Trust
to do the needful in this respect.
xx xx· xx
The dirty water which flows from the lavatories and urinals
<lf the. residential houses have no outlet and due to this reason E
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 saicl
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 F
through the drain properly. That causes the accumulation of water
and by the time it becomes dirty and stink and then jt produces _
mosquitoes there.
The Magistrate held in the end :
Thus after perusing the evidenfe I come to this conclusion· G
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-
applic~nts have taken no steps. whatsoever to remove ·all these
I public nuisances.
) H
i . He issued the following order wWch was wrongly found unjustified
}\, by the Sessions Court, but rightly upheld by the High Court :
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.
A -----
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:
0) 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 be•tween Shastri Colony· and
B
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) Accordipg 10 para 13 a few places are described which
are either having the same drains and the other area is having n<>
c drain and due to this the water stinks there; so the Municipal
Council and the Town Improvement Trust must r.onstruct the ·
proper drainage system and within their own premises where i\iere
is no drain it must be constructed i=ediately and all this work
should be completed within six months.
D (3) The Municipal Council should construct drains from the
/)ail 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 channe!lised and it may stop
stinking ana it should have a proper flow so that the water may
go easily towards the main Nallah. All these drains should be
E constructed completely within six months by the •Municipal
Council. ·
· (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. -
F
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.
G 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
H pervasive veracity that municipal bodies minus the people and plus the (
bureaucrats are the bathetic vogue-no better than when the British (
were here: 1
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. SHRI VARDHICHAND (Krishna Iyer, /.) I07
We proceed on the footing, as we indicated even when leave 'to A
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 obsolve 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 B
Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered
in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of
L. 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 c
removed from any public place or from any way, river
•· or channel which is or may be lawfully used by tie 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 D
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 E
(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 F
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 th5
G
nuisance, and so he shall exercise i:t 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."(1) Discretion becomes a duty when the beneficiary
brings home the circumstances for its benign exercise.
If the order is defied or ignored, s. 188 I.P.C. comes into penal H
play:
(I) Vivian Grey, Bk. VI Ch. 7, Benjamin Disraeli.
8-646 S.C. India/80
ios SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 s.c.R..
A 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 ·
B 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.
c There is no difficulty in locating who has the obligation to abalte
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
D
time being in force, it shall be the duty of a Council to undertake
and make reasonable and adequate provision for the following
I
matters within the limits of the MunicipaHty, namely: -
(a) ................ ..
(b) cleansing public streets, places and sewers, and all places
E 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
F 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
G '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 exone'rates
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
H 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
I
' MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. SHRI VARDHICHAND (Krishna Iyer, J.) l 09
statutory body or pachydermic governmental agency may legally defy
duties under the law by urgirig in self-defence a self-created bankruptcy
Qr perverted expenditure budget. That cannot be.
Section 133. Cr.P.C. is categoric, although reads discretionary.
Jm;licial discretion when facts for its exercise are present, has a
mandatory import. Therefore, when t)le sub-Divisional Magistrate, B
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 remove.d
from any public place which may be lawfully used by the public, he
shall act. Thus, his judicial power shall, passing through the
procedural barrel, fire upon the obstruction or nuisance, trigg<;red by c
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 l.P.C. Therefore, the Municipal Commissioner D
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 ill the Section. The offence is aggravated if the dis·
E
obedience tends to cause danger to human health or. safety. Tho
imperative tone of s. 133 Cr.P.C. read with the punitive temper ot
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 tho F
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
G
Art. 38 of the Constitution. This brings Indian public law; in its
processual branch, in lipe with the statement of Prof. Kojima: (I) "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)
(') Access to Justice Vol. 1, A ·world Survey,' ed. by M. Cappelletti & 'B'. H
Garth, p. 68.
(2) I bid p. 68·69.
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] J S.C.R.
"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
B 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 tnust be retained. "Access to justice" must encompass both
c . 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,
D
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
E 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 a'ttractive, but in working condition and sufficient to
meet the needs of the people-<annot be evaded if the municipality is
to justify its existence. A bare study of the statutory provisions makes
this position clear.
F
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
G 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
H to abate the ~uisance by taking affirmative action on a time-bound basill
is justified in the circumstances. The nature of the judicial process
is not purely adjudicatory nor is it functionally that of an umpire only ..
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. SHRI VAltDIIlCHAND (Krishna Iyer, J.) 11·1
Affirmative action to make the remedy effective is of the essence of A
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 B
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. Shami Sarup(l) where it
has been observed:
"We are of the opinion that in a matter of this nature where
c
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 workin.1t of the
bakery." D
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 E
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 appein-s, 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 F
planning about it within sii: 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. I."
A strange plea was put forward by the Municipal Council before G
..,,,, 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 H
sanitation and health cannot outrage the court by such an ugly plea.
(I) [1979) 2 S.C.C. 267 at 269.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [1981] 1 S.C,R.
A. Luckily, no such contention was advanced before us. The request
for further time for implementation o1 the Magistrate's order was
turned down by the High Court since no specific time-limit was accepted
by the municipality for fulfilment 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 snon as
B possible had no meaning. The High Court observed: . .
"Such assurances, it appears, are of no avail as tmfortunately
these proceedings for petty little things like clearing of dirty water,
dosing the pits and repairing of drains have taken more than seven
years and if these seven years are not sufficient to dc:i the needful,
c 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
D 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
E 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 o_ut. 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
F a value judgment where people's .health is a low_prfority. 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
G Magistrate had not adverted to the actual cost of the scheme nor the
reasonable time that would be taken tb execute it. As stated earlier
it is necessary to ascertain how far the scheme i's feasible and how
heavy the cost is lik-ely 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.
H . . Three schemes placed before us, together with. tentative estimates
of the costs, have been looked in'o by us. Judges are laymen 'aha
cannot put on expert airs. That was why we allowed. the municipality
:: ;~!J!'IIGH';AL COUNCIL y. SHRI', YARDHICIMND (Krishna .Iyer, /.) 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 B
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 to that scheme. We further direct
l 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
c
br:oadly to be satisfied that the order is being implemented bona fide .
. Breaches will be visited with the penalty of s. 188 1.P.C.
We make the further supplementary directions which we
specifically enjoin upon the municipal authority and the State
Government to · carry · out.
D
1. We direct the Ratlam Municipal Council (RI) 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.
8. 133 I.P.C., to abate the nuisance so caused. Industries E
can:not 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 bv me·n
and women separately, provide water supply and scavenging
service morning and evening so as to ensure sanitation. The F
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 th.at the local people will·
be trained in using and keeping these : toilets .in clean
condition. Conscious cooperation of the consumers is too
G.
important to be neglecteq 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 coritenied to file a teportbefore him to the effect
thai the work has been done in reasonable time .. H
.:r :1. 4. The municipality .wiU :notmerely constrµct the ,.c,lraigs but also
fill up c'esspoois 'and other pits of filth an,d use Its sanitary
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19811 i s.c.R.
A 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
B
consider action to punish for. contempt in case of report by
the Sub Divisional Magistrate of wilful breach by any officer.
We are sure that the State Government wili 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
c 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
D 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 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 :
E
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 orily when, for one reason or another, parties
F
can surmount the substantial barriers which it er<:cts t0 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
G 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 cfficers in charge and even the elected representatives will have
H
(I) Access to Justice-A World Survey, Vol. I, ed. M. Cappelletti & B.
Garth, p. 123-124.
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v.. SHRI VAROHICHAND (Krishna Iyer, J.) 115
to face the penalty of the law if what the Constitution and follow-up A
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.
B
N.V.K. Petition dismissed.
l
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "public nuisance"Sign in to search