Municipal Council, Ratlam vs Shri Vardhichand & Ors on 29 July, 1980 – Case Summary
In the case of Municipal Council, Ratlam vs Shri Vardhichand & Ors on 29 July, 1980, the Supreme Court of India was faced with a significant question of whether 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. The case emerged from a situation where the residents of a prominent residential locality of the Ratlam Municipality, in their complaint under s. 133 Criminal Procedure Code to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, averred that the Municipality had failed to meet its basic obligations, like provision of sanitary facilities on the roads, public conveniences for slum dwellers, and prevention of the discharge from the nearby Alcohol Plant of malodorous fluids into the public street.
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. However, 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.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized that 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. The Court held that 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. The Court also noted that 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.
The Court further held that 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.
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 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. 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.
This case is a landmark in the field of public interest litigation in India, emphasizing the role of the judiciary in compelling statutory bodies to fulfill their duties towards the community, particularly in matters of public health and sanitation. It underscores the principle that financial constraints cannot be an excuse for a statutory body to shirk its responsibilities towards the community it serves.