SANTOSH GOVIND MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 13th July, 2012, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad - respondent No.2 in this Contempt Petition is personally present in this Court. Two affidavits are filed by the Commissioner in this Contempt Petition. One affidavit has been filed on 28th October, 2011 and the additional affidavit has been filed on 16th July, 2012. Before adverting to the contents of the said affidavits, at this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to some of the provisions of the Constitution and also the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,1949 and also the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, which cast a duty upon the respondents and in particular, respondent No.2 to supply potable water to the citizens of Aurangabad city.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The parliamentarians were cautious about the social rights of the citizens of the country and parliament in its wisdom thought it fit to add the word 'Socialist' in the preamble of the Constitution way back in 1976. The directive principles of State Policy are given in Part IV and in particular, Articles 38, 39 and 47 cast an obligation on the State to take care of the health of the citizens and also to provide other facilities for good human life. Article 38, 39 and 47 of the Constitution of India are reproduced herein below for ready reference:

(3.) Equally, the citizens owe the duty under Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures. Apart from the above, there is the Water (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1974 of which, the Statement of Object and Reasons reads, as follows: