- (1.) RAVI S. Dhavan, J. Some times local politics and petty squabbles can go to ridiculous propositions in the violation of civic sense, good neighbour conduct and regard for the convenience and tolerance of others. This is one such case. The petitioner complains that his neighbour, the respondent No. 3, as a matter of per sonal prestige, spills sullage and sewage from his old privy and latrine and dis charge it infront of his house. Apparently when these two neighbours could not sort put their differences amongst them, the issue reached the local authorities. These were the Gorakhpur Development Authority, respondent No. 1 and the Nagar Mahapalika, Gorakhpur, the respondent No. 2. The Gorakhpur Development Authority functions under the U. P. Urban Planning and Develop ment Act, 1973 and the Nagar Mahapalika Gorakhpur, under the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. As both these public bodies are in- charge of city planning and its maintenance, they dis charge public duties for the benefit of the public.
(2.) THE petitioner complained to the Gorakhpur Development Authority of the inconvenience and the health-hazard, he was being subjected to by the respondent No. 3 from the discharge of the filth and sullage from an open service latrine in-front of his house. THE petitioner's com plaint was enquired into by the Gorakhpur Development Authority. A Junior En gineer gave a report. THE essence of which is that the respondent No. 3 was in fact, discharging sewage and sullage off his latrine, infront of the petitioner's house. THE allegation against the respondent No. 3 is that he had constructed a service latrine as opposed to a flush latrine. But this respondent contended before the Gorakhpur Development Authority that the old latrine had col lapsed and he had merely reconstructed it. Thiss is not an issue before the Court as what concerns the Court is that raw sewage and sullage from this respondent's service latrine is being so discharged ir responsibly in the locality. This shows that this respondent does not have any civic sense at all. The issue should have died after the order of Secretary, Gorakhpur Development Authority. This order is dated 27th November, 1981. In effect, the respondent No. 3 was directed to convert his service latrine into a flush latrine so that his privy does not act as a health-hazard and a nuisance to the members of the locality. Respondent No. 3 was given about one month's time to under take the necessary changes for sanitation within and outside his house. Apparently, this respondent did not take the hint and was in a mood to pursue the matter urther as if to retain his service latrine and irevent the conversion of its into a flush latinc. This was not a matter ii which this respondent should have filed an appeal before the Commissioner, orakhpur Division. This was appeal No. 45/g 1981, Pheku-Ram Yadav v. Gorakhpur Develop ment Authority and another. The appellate order is itself peculiar. The respondent No. 3 did not succeed in whatever he sought. Before the learned Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, the recorded an un dertaking on his willingness to convert the service latrine into a flush latrine "in due course of time". Having recorded this un dertaking the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, set aside the order of the Secretary, Gorakhpur Development Authorityand remanded the case for a decision afresh on certain observations made in this appellate order. Once the undertaking of respondent No. 3 had been recorded the issue should have died before the Divisional Commissioner in the ap peal. The High Court is unable to agree with the learned Commissioner that he could not locate any provision under the U. P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 that a person could be compelled to convert a service latrine into a flush latrine. The learned Commissioner, how ever, does observe that there may be other laws on this. Indeed there are other laws for this and even if there were not, the Constitution of India provides sufficiently to put an end to scavenging. As long as there will be service latrines the institution of scavengers will also exist shamefully.
(3.) THE Gorakhpur Development Authority and the Nagar Mahapalika, Gorakhpur have not answered the writ petition by a countei-affidavit. Likewise, the State of U. P. has also not filed a counter-affidavit. THE single most con tributing factor which even to-day promotes to this horrible concept of untouchability, is that society has not permitted manual scavenging as an institution to die by a one stroke effort 10 eliminate this abhorable practice by flush toilets. The court mentions this aspect as the issue between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 is whether a service latrine could exist or not. This issue con tinued in a revision under Section 41 (3) of the U. P. Urban Planning and Develop ment Act, 1973 before the State Govern ment. The revision was filed by the petitioner against the Commissioner's Order. The High Court cannot blame the petitioner for this because if the Commis sioner had set aside the order of the Gorakhpur Development Authority and refrained from granting liberty to convert the service latrine to a flush latrine 'in due course of time', the harassment, the incon venience and the health-hazard in so far the petitioner or for that matter the people of the locality were concerned, would have ceased. To do some act 'in due course of time' is as good as not doing it at all.;