# MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RATLAM v. SHRI VARDHICHAND & ORS - **Citation:** [1981] 1 S.C.R. 97 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1981 - **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, 0. Chinnappa Reddy· - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/municipal-council-ratlam-v-shri-vardhichand-ors-8192 - **Pages:** 19 ## Headnote 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 Constituti ## Text _Characters 0–39,988 of 47,269. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39988 for what follows._ 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 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. l 23 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.) A B c No. 2856 of 1979. D 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 E F G H A B c D E F G 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R. 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,. is populous with 1 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< Plant of malodorous fluids into the public street. In this lawless locale, mosqtiHoes found a stagnant stream of stench so hospitable to breeding and flourishing, with no municipal agent disturbing their stinging music at human expense. The local denizens, driven by desperation, at long last, decided to use the law and call the bluff of the municipal body's bovine indifference to its basic obliga.tions. under s. 123 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (the Act, for short). That provision casts a mandate : 123. Duties of Council.-(1) In addition to the duties. H 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- (l)Melvyn P. Sikes, Administration of Injustice. ) I __.._ MUNICIPAL. COUNCIL. v. SHRI VARDHICHAND (Krishna Iyer. J.) 101 undertake and make reasonable and adequate provision for the following matters within the limits of the Municipality, namely: xx xx xx (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 aU public nuisances: (c) disposing of night-soil and rubbish and preparation of compost manure from night-soil and rubbish. And yet the municipality was obvious to this obliga1ion towards Jmman well-being and was directly guilty of breach of duty and public nuisance and active neglect. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ratlam, was moved to take action under s. 133 Cr.P.C. 1to abate the nuisance by ordering the municipality to construct drain pipes with flow of wate~ to wash the1 filth and stop the stench. The Magistrate found the facts proved, made the direction sought and scared by the prospect of prosecution under s. 188 I.P.C., for violation of ·the order under s. 133 Cr.P.C., the municipality rushed from court to court till, at last, years after, it reached this Court as the last refuge of lost causes. Had the municipal council and its executive officers spent half this litigative zeal on cleaning up the street and constructing the drains by rousing the people's sramdan resources and laying out the city's limited financial resources, the people's needs might have been iargely met long ago. But litigation with, other's funds is an intoxicant, while public service for .common benefit is an inspiration; and. in a competition between 'the two, the former overpowers the latter. Not where a militant people's will takes over people's welfare institutions, energises the common human numbers, canalises their community consciousness, forbids the offending factories from polluting the environment, forces the affluent to contribute wealth and the indigent their work and thus transforms the area into a healthy locality vibrant with popular participation and vigilance, not neglected ~hettoes noisy with squabbles among the slimy slum-dwellers nor with electoral 'sound and fury signifying nothing.' The Magistrate, whose activist applica'tion of s. 133 Cr.P.C., for the larger purpose of making the Ratlani municipal body to do its duty and abate ·the nuisance by affirmative action, has our appreciation. He has summed up the concrete facts which may be usefully quoted in portions : "New Road, Ratlam, is a very important road and so many prosperous and educated persons are living on this Road. On A c E F .G 102 A B E .F ·G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R. the southern side of this Road some houses are· situated and behind •these houses and attached to the College boundary, the Municipality has constructed a road and this new Road touches the Government College and its boundary. Just in between the said area a dirty Nala is flowing which is just in the middle of the main road i.e. New Road. In this stream (nala) many a time dirty and filthy water of Alcohol Plant having chemical and obnoxious smell, is also released for which the people of that locality and general public have to face most obnoxious smell. This Nala also produces filtl;i which causes a bulk of mosquitoes breeding. On this very southern side of the said road a few days back municipality has also constructed a drain but it has (?) constructed it completely but left the construction in between and in some of the parts the drain has not at all been constructed because of this the dirty water of half constructed drain and septic tank is flowing on the open land of applicants, where due to insanitation and due to non-removing the obstructed earth the water is accumulated in the pits and it also creates dirt and bad smell and produces mosquitoes in large quantities. Thi~ water also goes to nearby houses and causes harm to them. For this very reason the applicants and the other people of that locaUty are unable to live and take rest in their respective houses. This is also injurious ·to health". There are more dimensions to the environmental polluti011 which the magistrate points out: "A large area of this locality is having slums where no facility of lavatories is supplied by the municipality. Many such people live in these slums who relieve their lateral dirt on the bank of drain or on the adjacent land. This way an open latrine is created by these people. This creates heavy dirt and mosquitoes. The drains constructed in other part of this Mohalla are also not proper it does not flow the water properly and it creates the water obnoxious. The Malaria Department of the State of M.P. also pays no attention in this direction. The nonapplicants have not managed the drains, Nallahs and Naliyan properly and due to incomplete construction the non-applicants have left no outlet for the rainy water. Owing to above reasons the water. is accumulated on the main road, it passes through living houses, sometimes snakes and scorpions come out and this obstruct the people to pass through this road. This also causes financial loss to the people of this area. The road conslructed by Nagarpalika is on a high level and due to this, this year more' 1 . MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. SHRI VARDHICHAND (Krishna Iyer, J.j 103 water entered the houses of this locality and it caused this year more harm and loss to the houses also. This way all works done by the non-applicants i.e. construction of drain, canal and road come within the purview of public nuisance. The nonapplicants have given no response to the difficulties of the applicants, and non-applicants are careless in their duties towards the public, for which without any reason the applicants are facing the intolerable nuisance. In this relation the people of this locality submitted their returns, notices and given their personal appearance also ·to the non-applicants but the non-applicants are shirking from their responsibilities and try to avoid their duty by showing other one responsible for the same, whereas all the nonapplicants are responsible for the public nuisance." Litigation is traumatic and so the local people asked first for municipal remedies failing which they moved for magisterial remedies: "At the last the applicants requested to remove all the nuisance stated in their main application and they also requested that undermentioned works must be done by the .non-applicants and for ~hich suitable orders may be issued forthwith: 1. The drains constructed by Municipality are mismanaged and incomplete, they should be managed and be completed and flow of water in the drains should be made so that the water may pass through ,the drain without obstruction. 2. The big pits and earthen drains which are situated near the College boundary and on the corners of the road where dirty water usually accumulates, they should be dosed and the filth shall be removed •therefrom. 3. The big 'Nala' which is in between the road, should be managed and ·covered in this way that it must not create overflow in the rainy season. 4. The Malaria Department should be ordered to sprinkle D.D.T. and act in such a ll1anner and use such means so that the mosquitoes may be eradicated completely from the said Iocality." The proceedings show the justness of the grievances and the indifference of the local body: "Both the parties heard. The court was satisfied on the facts contained in their application dated 12-5-72 and granted conditional c D E1 order against non-applicants No. 1 and 2 u/s 133 of Cr. P.C~ (Old H .Code). In this 'order all the nuisances were described (which were there in their main application) and the court dire<:J:ed to• remove· 104 SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R. A all the nuisances within 15 days and if the non-applicants have any objection or dis-satisfaction against the order then they must file it on the next date of hearing in the court." B c D E F G xx xx xx "The applicants got examined the following witnesses in their evidence and after producing following documents they closed their evidence." xx xx xx "No evidence has been produced by the non-applicants in spite of giving them so many opportunities. Both the parties heard and I have also inspected the site." xx xx. xx "The non-applicant (Municipal Council) has sought six times to produce evidence but all in vain. Likewise non-applicant (Town Improvement Trust) has also produced no evidence." The Nallah comes into picture after the construction of road and bridge. It has shown that Nallah is property of Nagarpalika according to Ex.p. 10. Many applications were submitted t" remove the nuisance but without result. According to Sec. 32 to 43 of the Town Improvement Trust Act, it is shown, that it has only the provisions to make plans. Many a time people tried t" attract the attention of Municipal Council and the Town Improvement Trust but the non-applicants always tried to throw the responsiHility on one another shoulder. xx xx xx It is submitted by non-applicant (Municipality) that the said. Nallah belongs to whom, it is still disputed i.e. whether it belongs to non-applicant 1 or 2. Shastri Colony is within the area of Town Improvement Trust. The Nagarpalika (non-applicant No. 1) is financially very weak. But Municipal Council is not careless towards its duties. Non-applicant (Town Improvement Trust) argued that primary 1 responsibility lies with the Municipal Council only. There is no "r drainage system. At the end of it all, the Court recorded : H ............... after considering all the facts I come to this conclusion that the said dirty Nallah is in between tl~e main road of Ratlam City. This dirty Nallah affects the Mohalla of New ----------------- I ) i }\, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. SHRI VARDHICHAND (Krishna Iyer. J.) 105 Road, Shastri Colony, Volga Talkies and it is just in the heart -0f the city. This is tae v~.y important road and is between the Railway Station and the main city. In these mohallas, cultured and educated· people 'are living. The Nallah which flows in between the New Road and Shastri Colony the water is not flowing rapidly and on many places there are deep pits in which the. dirty ·water is accumulated. The Nallah is also not straight that is .also the reason of accumulation of dirty water. The Nallah is not managed properly by the non-applicants. It is unable to gush the rainy water and due to this the adjoining areas always suffer from over-flowing of the water and it caus~s the obstruction to the pedestrians. xx xx· xx It is also proved by the evidence given by the applicants that from time to time the Power Alcohol factory which is situated outside the premises of the Municipal Council and it flows its dirty .and filthy water into the said Nallah, due to this also the obnoxious -smell is spreading throughout the New Road or so it is the bounden duty of the Municipal Council and 1he Town Improvement Trust to do the needful in this respect. xx xx· xx The dirty water which flows from the lavatories and urinals 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 ( ( L. •· 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: A s. 133(1) whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional B 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 c D E fixed by the order, and show cause, in the manner F 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 all must exist."(1) Discretion becomes a duty when the beneficiary brings home the circumstances for its benign exercise. G If the order is defied or ignored, s. 188 I.P.C. comes into penal H play: (I) Vivian Grey, Bk. VI Ch. 7, Benjamin Disraeli. 8-646 S.C. India/80 ios SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 s.c.R.. A 188. Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a B c D E F G H 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 ' 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 the new change thus : (2) (') Access to Justice Vol. 1, A ·world Survey,' ed. by M. Cappelletti & 'B'. Garth, p. 68. (2) I bid p. 68·69. B c D E F ' G H I B c D E F G H 110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] J S.C.R. "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 systemsnot pompous and a'ttractive, but in working condition and sufficient to meet the needs of the people-