ANIL DEV SINGH, CJ. - (1.) The city of Jaipur has an important place in the history of the State of Rajasthan. City of Jaipur is steeped in history. It has rich mosaic. It has ancient monuments, palaces, Havelies, unique architecture, art, culture and festivals. It being the capital of the State deserves to showcase the history, heritage and culture of the people of the city. But the city has since been suffering from slew of maladies. These have to some extent clouded its magnificence and splendour. This has also adversely affected the quality of life of the residents. Decay of the city must be prevented and it needs to be restored to its pristine glory, beauty, grace and charm. Keeping this in view, we Issued suo motu notice to the concerned authorities on August 13, 2003. A nudge to them to perform their statutory duties and to remind them that the city of Jaipur deserves to be rid of filth and squalor, heaps of dirt, piles of garbage, unauthorized constructions, encroachments, stench and stink caused by open drains, pot-hole roads, etc. is necessary so that people can have a life which is worth living.
(2.) It is well settled that right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution takes within its sweep right to a life which is worth living. It includes the following rights as well : (1) right to food, clothing, and shelter, (2) right to reasonable accommodation to live in, (3) right to decent environment, and (4) right to live in a clean city. In Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622, the Supreme Court considered the question whether the order of trial Court, which was upheld by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, directing the Ratlam Municipality to draft a plan within six months for the removal of nuisance caused by the open drains, human excreta littering the roads etc., could be sustained. The Supreme Court held, that by affirmative action the Court could compel a statutory body to carry out its duties to the community including creation of sanitary conditions in the city. Expressing anxiety over the condition of Ratlam town, the Supreme Court observed as follows :- ".....Ward No. 12, New Road, Ratlam town is an area where prosperity and poverty live as strange bedfellows. 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 basic sanitation and public drains fell on deaf ears. Another contributory cause to the insufferable situation was the discharge from the Alcohol plant of malodorous fluids into the public street. In this lawless locale, mosquitoes found a stagnant stream of stench so hospitable to breeding and flourishing, with no municipal agent disturbing their stinging music at human expense...... (Para 2) In this view, the Magistrate's approach appears to be impeccable although in places he seems to have been influenced by the fact that "cultured and educated people" live in this area and "New Road, Ratlam is a very important road and so many prosperous and educated persons are living on this road". In India 'one man one value' is the democracy of remedies and rich or poor the law will call to order where peoples rights are violated. What should also have been emphasized was the neglect of the Malaria Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh to eliminate mosquitoes, especially with open drains, heaps of dirt, public excretion by humans for want of lavatories and slums nearby, had created an intolerable situation for habitation. An order to abate the nuisance by taking affirmative action on a time bound basis is justified in the circumstances. The nature of the judicial process is not purely adjudicatory nor is it functionally that of an umpire only. Affirmative action to make the remedy effective is on the essence of the right which otherwise becomes sterile. Therefore, 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 Cr. P. C. authorizes the prescription of a time limit for carrying out the order. The same provision spells out the power to give specific directives. We see no reason to disagree with the order of the Magistrate." (Para 16)
(3.) Relying on the decision in Municipal Council, Ratlam's case (AIR 1980 SC 1622) (supra), the Supreme Court in Dr. B. L. Wadehra v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2969, directed the Municipal Corporation Delhi and the New Delhi Municipal Council to perform its statutory duties of scavenging and cleaning the city. The Supreme Court did not accept the grounds of inadequacy of funds or insufficiency of machinery for non-performance of their statutory obligations.;