MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RATLAM v. SHRI VARDHICHAND & ORS (2)

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 97

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY

Case summary

, 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 .

Judgment text

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 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 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 to the Jaw. [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 nuisanc.

i and so he shail exercise, it when the jurisdictional facts arc present. [1070] 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 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 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 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 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 selfgoveming bodies. Similarly, providing drainage systems :10t pompws 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. [llOE] l l.

The Court, armed with the provisions of the two Codes and justified \. -by the obligation under s. l23 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] 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] 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 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 .

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. 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. 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 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 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 ':interest litigation, these issues must be considered. In that sense, the .

case before us between the Ratlam Municipality and the citizens of 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 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 topublic grievances. 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,. 1 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 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 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 cause to the insufferable situation was the discharge from the Alcohol 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. (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 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. - 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 casesone 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: 1 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. SHRI VARDHICHAND (Krishna Iyer, /. ) I 0 7 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 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 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 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 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 th5 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 1 all must exist. "( ) 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 play: (I) Vivian Grey, Bk. VI Ch. 7, Benjamin Disraeli. 8-646 S. C. India/80 188.

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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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· 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 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 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 2 the new change thus :( ) (') Access to Justice Vol. 1, A ·world Survey,' ed. by M. Cappelletti & 'B'. Garth, p. 68. (2) Ibid p. 68·69. "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 Homburgerhas 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 tnust 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 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. 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 ~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 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. Shami Sarup(l) 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 workin. 1t 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 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 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 .. ,,,, 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 sanitation and health cannot outrage the court by such an ugly plea. (I) [1979) 2 S. C. C. 267 at 269. 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 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, 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 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 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 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. . . 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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.. . :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 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 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 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 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 orily when, for one reason or another, parties 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 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 (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