CASE COMMENT

Municipal Council, Ratlam vs Shri Vardhichand & Ors.

In Supreme Court of India
1980 AIR 1622, 1981 SCR (1) 97

Petitioner
Municipal Council, Ratlam
Respondent
Shri Vardhichand & Ors.
Date of Judgement
29 July, 1980

Case no.
Special Leave and Petition (Criminal ) No.2856 of 1979

Advocates
Sobhag mal Jain,Senior advocate (S.K.Jain Advocate, with him)
For the petitioner;
C.S chhazed, Ms. Manisha Gupta and M.S. gupta,
Advocates , For Respondents;
S.K. Gambhir , Advocate , for the state.
Bench
JusticeV.R. Krishna Iyer
Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.

Acts
Section 123 of the municipalities act, 1961
Section 32 to 43 of the Town Improvement Trust Act,
Section 141 of the criminal procedure code
Section 133 of the criminal procedure code
Directive Principles of State Policy, Part IV of the constitution of India
Article 38 of the Constitution

Human rights
Right to a clean environment, Right to health, Right to life.
INTRODUCTION

In a landmark judgement in 1980, the Supreme Court (SC) ordered Madhya Pradesh's Ratlam
municipality to clean a locality, holding that budgetary constraints didn't justify a municipality
neglecting its statutory obligation to provide sanitation facilities. It also made it mandatory for a
magistrate to remove a public nuisance wherever one existed.

Ratlam is a city in the State of Madhya Pradesh in India. Some of the residents of the
municipality filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ,Vardhichand Porwal, the
advocate who filed against the municipality in 1963 made history of the first ever public interest
litigation filed in the country, alleging that the municipality is not constructing proper drains and
there is stench and stink caused by the excertion by nearby slum-dwellers and that there was
nuisance to the petitioners. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the municipality to prepare a
plan with six months to remove the nuisance. The order passed by the SDM was approved by the
High Court. The Municipality came in appeal before the Supreme Court of India and contended
that it did not have sufficient funds to carry out the work directed by the SDM. The Supreme
Court of India gave directions to the Municipality to comply with the directions and said that
paucity of funds shall not be a defence to carry out the basic duties by the local authorities.

Thereafter, series of cases were filled before the Supreme Court and there was a dynamic change
in the whole approach of the courts in matters concerning environment.

The judgement delivered by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Ratlam Municipality Case in 1980 has
viewed the concept of public nuisance in an environmental sense. He gave a new life to Section
133 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which gives powers to the District Magistrate to avert public
nuisance in a particular locality. In this case, the Supreme Court dismissed the argument of
Ratlam Municipality that it could not perform the statutory duties due to financial inability. The
Court ordered the Municipality to provide the basic civic facilities to the public without making
lame excuses. This Judgement became an eye opener for the public-spirited individuals and
encouraged them to file litigations to solve local environmental issues. This reformed the whole
system and a number of cases have been filed before different courts seeking remedies against
environmental pollution.

FACTS
The residents (respondents) of a prominent residential locality of the Municipality (petitioner)
in their complaint under section 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 prevention 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 of
amenities. 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 section 188
I.P.C.

The order of the Magistrate was found unjustified by the Sessions Court, but upheld by the High
Court. . Afterwards the municipality came in appeal before the apex court of India and alleged
that they do not have proper financial support as well as proper funds to comply with the
direction given by the sub divisional magistrate of Ratlam city.

6. After that, Supreme court gave direction to the municipality to follow the directions given by
the Sub Divisional magistrate under Section 123 of Municipality Act , 1961 and said that
shortage of funds is not a defence to carry out the basic duties done by the local authorities of a
particular region.

PROCEDURE
Residents (the respondents) of a neighbourhood in the Municipality of Ratlam (the petitioner)
filed a complaint at the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The Magistrate found the facts proven and
ordered the Municipality to provide for sanitation services, a drainage construction and closure
of pits with mud to stop mosquito breeding, within two months. A failure to comply with this
order would lead to criminal prosecution for failure to abate a public nuisance . The Municipal
Council contested the petition on the ground that the owners of houses had chosen to live in that
area, fully aware of the insanitary conditions, thereby precluding their right to complain. The
Municipal Council also pleaded financial difficulties in the construction of drains and provision
of services .The order of the Magistrate was dismissed by the Sessions Court, but was
subsequently upheld by the High Court. The Municipality then appealed the High Court’s
decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE RAISED
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.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Petitioner:-

Municipal Council argued on the ground that the residents of that locality have chosen that area
with their choice and owners of the house fully aware of the insanitary conditions prevailing
there. Thereby the owner of the houses precluding their right to complaint for the in sanitary
condition prevailing there. Municipal Council also contended that there were limitation of
financial resources for the construction of and provision of services to fulfill the directions given
by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam city.

Respondent:-

Respondents argued that the Municipality of Ratlam city had failed to meet its obligations given
by the sub divisional magistrate to provide for public health including by failing to abate
pollution and other hazardous waste from impacting their homes. Respondents focused to stop
pollution caused by runoff from a nearby alcohol plant, mitigation of open waste that collected in
open pools and poorly drained areas, mitigation of malaria resulting from standing water, and the
creation of sanitary facilities to prevent the flow of human waste into their neighboring areas.

JUDGEMENT:-

In this case the apex court upheld the decision of High court. The Supreme court instructed the
Municipal Council of Ratlam to immediately follow order given by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate of Ratlam city to protect the area from pollution caused by alcohol plant flowing into
the neighbouring areas of the resident . Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view affirming
the Magistrate’s order. Supreme court also ordered the municipal to take necessary steps to
fulfill their obligation by providing adequate number of public laterals for specifically men and
women separately along with to provide water supply and scavenging service in morning as well
as in evening to ensure proper sanitation. The court also ordered that these obligations to be
fulfilled within six months of court order. It was also added by the court if its order was not
followed by the Municipal Corporation then it will face charge of criminal contempt of court.
Further more, court also directed State Government to provide some measures to the department
responsible for malaria along with the city within specified time. The Court Further held that in
case municipality feel the need of resources then it will raise its demand from State government
by elitist projects, request loans from the State Government from the savings account of public
health expenditure to fulfill the resource requirement for the implementation of courts order.
REASONING

The Court held that the Municipal Council was obliged to take responsibility for the conditions
of New Road, which were found to be a public nuisance. This was the result of a combination of
two laws:

 The Municipal Council’s duty as stipulated in § 123 M.P.M.A.

 The authority of the Magistrate’s court to make orders concerning public nuisances as
detailed in § 133 Cr.P.C. (with the threat of punitive enforcement in § 188 I.P.C.).

The Municipal Council’s legal obligations included providing adequate public latrines, filling in
the cesspools, stopping the flow of effluent, and spraying potential malaria infestation.

The Court rejected the Municipal Council’s argument that financial constraints prohibited it from
obeying the Magistrate’s order. The Court held that the Municipal Council could not “run away
from its principal duty by pleading financial inability” and that “decency and dignity” were
“non-negotiable facets of human rights” which constituted a “first charge on local self-governing
bodies.” The Court held that sanitised public places should not be at the risk of a “self created
bankruptcy” or a “perverted expenditure budget.”

The Court held that it had the authority to require the Municipal Council to adopt a specific
scheme toward meeting its obligations under the order. Justification for “affirmative action on a
time-bound basis” was on the basis of the severe circumstances, such as the significant lack of
managing malaria concerns. Therefore the Court was obliged to behave as more than a mere
“umpire” or ‘“adjudicator.”

The Court selected one of the three schemes presented by expert engineers from both the
Applicants and Respondents, which presented a balance between realizing the Municipal
Council’s statutory duties, and acknowledging it’s financial and time constraints.

To further manage the financial demands of the orders, and in accordance with the directive
principal of improving public health enshrined in Article 47 of the Constitution, the Court
directed the State Government of Madhya Pradesh to lend the necessary funds to the Municipal
Council.
PRINCIPLES EVOLVED FROM THE JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

 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.

 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 persons lawfully pursuing their
employment, shall be punished with simple imprisonment or fine as prescribed in the
section.
The offence is aggravated if the disobedience tends to cause danger to human health or
safety.

 The imperative tone of s. 133 Criminal Procedure Code read with the punitive temper
of s. 188 I.P.C. make the prohibitory act a mandatory duty.

 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.

 Section 123 M. P. Municipalities Act 1961 has no saving clause when the municipal
council is penniless.

 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.

( Govind Singh v. Shanti Sarup, [1979] 2 SCC 267, 279 referred to.)

 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.
OBITER DICTA

 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 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.

 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.

 Although the Cr.P.C. and I.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 be 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.

 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.

 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 charge and 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. The wages of violation is punishment, corporate and
personal.
SIGNIFICANCE AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CASE

Any discussion on environmental law without taking into account the role of judiciary in India
will be incomplete. If there is any aspect of environment, which is protected or any provision of
environmental law, which has been implemented in India, it is largely due to the constant efforts
taken by the judiciary.

The judiciary has always been responsive towards environmental protection and conservation. In
fact, the higher judiciary has created a new environmental jurisprudence in the country over the
years by delivering many landmark judgements, which changed the fate of environment in a
significant way. Also, from the above judgment it is very clear that the Indian judiciary has tried
to interpret the provision of section 133 to provide speedy and simple remedy for the problems of
environmental pollution. As per my view ,the judgement given by the honourable judge in this
case was a milestone in the path of environmental protection.It can be easily called as landmark
judgement in environmental protection . The judiciary has viewed the human rights on one hand
and the environmental protection on the other hand as the two faces of the same coin. The
decision proves that judiciary is protector of fundamental right as in this case it protected the
right of each individual in relation to environment under Art. 21 of the Constitution. Therefore,
according to my view the verdict given in this case is reasonable and justified.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Envionment ecological protection & Climate warming Biodiversity

Monday, June 11, 2012

Municipal Council, Ratlam, vs Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622. stench and stink caused
by the excertion by nearby slum-dwellers
http://envionmentclimatechanges.blogspot.com/2012/06/municipal-council-ratlam-vs-
vardhichand.html?m=1

 Supreme Court of India

Municipal Council, Ratlam vs Shri Vardhichand & Ors on 29 July, 1980
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1622, 1981 SCR (1) 97
Author: V Krishnaiyer
Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/440471/

 Municipal Council, Ratlam vs Shri Vardhichand & Ors.

By Vaishali Malhotra
October 7, 2019
https://lawtimesjournal.in/municipal-council-ratlam-vs-shri-vardhichand-ors/

 https://www.casemine.com/search/in/Municipal%20Council%2C%20Ratlam%20v(DOT)
%20Shri%20Vardichan%20And%20Others