Muni Lal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
1997 Latest Caselaw 729 Del

JUDGMENT

M.S.A. Siddiqqi, J.

(1) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission itself.

BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks an injunction against the respondents restraining it from constructing public latrines in front of the petitioner's house. The petitioner's grievance is that there is a proposal to rebuilt public latrines at points A & B, shown in the map annexed with the writ petition, which were demolished long ago on complaints made by the residents of the locality. His further grievance is that these public latrines, if allowed to be constructed will cause inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner.

(2) Respondent denied the petitioner's case and alleged that the 'existing latrines block is being renovated/reconstructed.to provide better hygienic facilities to the residents of the locality.

(3) It is significant that Section 359 of the D.M.C. Act (for short 'the Act') mandates that the respondent shall provide and maintain in proper and convenient places a sufficient number of public latrines and urinals. Needless to add that in a welfare state it is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation and the sustaining of conditions congenial to good health. In Dr. Ashok v. Union of India, , it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the right to life enshrined in Article 21 means right to have something more than survival and not mere existence or animal existence. It includes all those aspects of life which go to make a man's life meaningful, complete and worth living. Their Lordships further observed that the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 also includes protection of the health and facilities in children to develop in a healthy manner. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that there existed a public latrine block at the site in question, which according to the respondent was in a dilapidated condition and now the same is being renovated/reconstruction for catering the need of public. This being the situation, the respondent, cannot be prevented from discharging its statutory obligation to provide public latrines at convenient places for the public at large. In my opinion, the proposed action of the respondent for renovating/reconstructing the public latrines does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

FOR the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.