FACTS OF THE CASE:

this case residents of Ratlam city situated in state of Madhya Pradesh was the petitioners. Some
of the residents of Ratlam city filed complaint before Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam city
alleging that municipality of that area is not constructing proper drains as required and because
of excertion created by nearby slum dwellers resulted into stench and stink in that area which led
public nuisance to the petitioners of the case. The Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam district
instructed the municipality to prepare a proper development plan within 6 months of the
complaint submitted by the residents of Ratlam city. The directions the Sub Divisional
Magistrate to the municipality was approved by High Court. Afterwards the municipality came
in appeal before the apex court of India and alleged that they do not have proper financial
support as well as proper funds to comply with the direction given by the sub divisional
magistrate of Ratlam city. After that, Supreme court give direction to the municipality to follow
the directions given by the Sub Divisional magistrate under Section 123 of Municipality Act ,
1961and said that shortage of funds is not a defence to carry out the basic duties done by the
local authorities of a particular region.

Issues raised

 Whether by affirmative action a court can compel a statutory body to carry out duty
towards community to have a proper sanitation facility at greater cost.

Arguments advanced

Petitioner:-

Municipal Council argued on the ground that the residents of that locality have chosen that area
with their choice and owners of the house fully aware of the insanitary conditions prevailing
there. Thereby the owner of the houses precluding their right to complaint for the in sanitary
condition prevailing there. Municipal Council also contended that there were limitation of  
financial resources for the construction of and provision of services to fulfill the directions given
by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam city.
Respondent:-

Respondents argued that the Municipality of Ratlam city had failed to meet its obligations  given
by the sub divisional magistrate to provide for public health including by failing to abate
pollution and other hazardous waste from impacting their homes. Respondents focused to stop
pollution caused by runoff from a nearby alcohol plant, mitigation of open waste that collected in
open pools and poorly drained areas, mitigation of malaria resulting from standing water, and the
creation of sanitary facilities to prevent the flow of human waste into their neighboring areas.

Judgement:-

In this case the apex court upheld the decision of High court. The Supreme court instructed the
Municipal Council of Ratlam to immediately follow order given by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate of Ratlam city to protect the area from pollution caused by alcohol plant flowing into
the neighbouring areas of the resident .Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view affirming
the Magistrate’s order. Supreme court also ordered the municipal to take necessary steps to 
fulfill their obligation by providing adequate number of public laterals for specifically men and
women separately along with to provide water supply and scavenging service in morning as well
as in evening to ensure proper sanitation. The court also ordered that these obligations to be
fulfilled within six months of court order. It was also added by the court if its order was not
followed by the Municipal Corporation then it will face charge of criminal contempt of  court.
Further more, court also directed State Government to provide some measures to the department
responsible for malaria along with the city within specified time. The Court Further held that in
case municipality feel the need of resources then it will raise its demand fromState government
by elitist projects, request loans from the State Government from the savings account of public
health expenditure to fulfill the resource requirement for the implementation of courts order.

Significance and critical analysis of judgement:-

As per my view ,the judgement given by the honourable judge in this case  was a milestone in
the path of environmental protection.It can be easily called as landmark judgement  in
environmental protection . The judiciary has viewed the human rights on one hand and the
environmental protection on the other hand as the two faces of the same coin. The decision
proves that judiciary is protector of fundamental right as in this case it  protected the right of
each individual in relation to environment under Art. 21 of the Constitution.Therefore, according
to my view the verdict given in this case is reasonable and justified.