MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RATLAM versus SHRI VARDHICHAND & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 97 · Decided: 29-07-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

97 
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RATLAM 
v. 
SHRI VARDHICHAND & ORS. 
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, 
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 
A 
B 
c 
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 
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 
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 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 
E 
F 
G 
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] 
A 
B 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981) 1 S.C.R. 
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 
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] 
• 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
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 
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 
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 t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.