Srinagar Bandh Apada Sangharsh Samiti Anr. V. Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd Ors.
- 2022-02-17
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: 1980 AIR 1622, 1981 SCR (1) 97
Coram: Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
Facts:
Some of the residents of Ratlam city filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam city alleging that the Municipality of that area is not building proper drains as required, resulting in stench and stink in that area due to excretion created by nearby slum dwellers, which caused public nuisance to the complainants. Another contributory cause to the insufferable situation was the discharge from the Alcohol plant of malodorous fluids into the public street.
Within 6 months of the complaint submitted by the residents of Ratlam area, the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam district instructed the municipality to prepare a proper development plan.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate’s instructions to the Municipality were accepted by the High Court.
The Municipality subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court and alleged that it did not have sufficient financial support and adequate funds to comply with the direction provided by the sub-divisional magistrate of the city of Ratlam.
After that, the Supreme Court gave the Municipality directions to obey the instructions provided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 123 of the Municipality Act , 1961, stating that the lack of funds is not a defence to carry out the essential duties performed by the local authorities of a specific area.
Issue:
Whether by affirmative action a court can compel a statutory body to carry out duty towards community to have a proper sanitation facility at greater cost.
Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision in this case. The Supreme Court directed the Municipal Council of Ratlam to immediately comply with the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the city of Ratlam to protect the environment from the contamination caused by the flow of alcohol into the neighbouring areas of the people. The Supreme Court upheld the opinion of the High Court, affirming the order of the Magistrate. The Supreme Court also directed the municipal to take the requisite measures to fulfil its duty by separately providing an appropriate number of public laterals for males and females separetely, as well as providing morning and evening water supply and scavenging services to ensure proper sanitation. The court also ordered the execution of these obligations within six months of the court order.
The Court also added that if the Municipal Corporation did not obey its order, it would be charged with criminal contempt of court. The Court further held that in case the Municipality feels the need for resources, it can request loans from the State Government from the savings account of public health expenditure to fulfil the resource requirement for the implementation of the Court’s order.
