Case Comment: “Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs. Vardichan And Ors.”

Shubham Sanjay Paliwal, Symbiosis Law School, Pune

“IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 2856 of 1979

Decided On: 29/07/1980

Citation: AIR 1980 SC 1622”

IN THE MATTER OF:

“Municipal Council, Ratlam...............................................................Appellants

Vs.

Vardichan and Ors...................................................................................Respondent

Hon’ble Judges/Coram: O. Chinnappa Reddy and V.R. Krishna Iyer, JJ.”

BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE

This is a case which is concerned about a pedestrian quasi-criminal litigation invoked under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”). The Appellant has appealed against the decision of the High Court’s order which directed the Appellant to manufacture and construct drainage systems and keep sanitation facilities in check.

Ratlam is a populous city located in Madhya Pradesh sheltering human and sub-human species. In Ward No. 12, New Road in Ratlam, the rich and the poor are in existence. The poverty-stricken individuals used to engage in activities such as littering the street with fecal matter, due to no presence of public washrooms and latrines. This prompted the well-to-do citizens to protest about such occurrences, however the demand for setting up public drains fell on deaf ears. To worsen the situation, there was also an alcohol plant that started releasing its discharge on to the streets. Moreover, there was a stream which was flowing in the middle of the main road harboring fecal matter, effluents, and an obnoxious smell. Furthermore, because of this stagnant and continuous discharge of water, mosquitoes began to breed and found a comfortable abode without any intervention. Interestingly, the Municipality had constructed a drain but abandoned the construction midway which resulted in a septic tank overflowing on the land of the residents.

In light of these events, the residents approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate (“SDM”) who directed the Municipality to devise a programme to revamp the existing drainage structure and install latrines within a period of 6 months. However, this direction was not paid any heed to by the Municipality on the grounds that they lack adequate funds. Thus, the Appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court. Because the SDM made a mention of Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”), the fear of criminal punishment drove the Appellant to appeal in the High Court and currently the Supreme Court.