AMARESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "DECENCY AND DIGNITY ARE NON- NEGOTIABLE FACETS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND ARE A FIRST CHARGE ON LOCAL SELF- GOVERNING BODIES". - JUSTICE KRISHNA IYER. Sri.D.P.Ambekar., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Shivakumar R.Tengli., learned AGA for respondents 1, 2 & 4 and Sri.Veershetty.M., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Amresh S.Roja., for respondent No.3 have appeared in person.

(2.) The brief facts are these: The first petitioner is the owner of the house bearing H.No.19 and the second petitioner is the owner of the house on Plot No.20 both situated in Sy.No.58/D of K.C. Nagar, Sholapur Road, Vijayapura. The petitioners purchased the said plots under the registered sale deeds dtd. 17/7/1989 and 24/2/1997 respectively. It is said that their names are entered in the land records and also in the Record of Rights. It is stated that the first petitioner constructed his house after obtaining all necessary permission. It is said that Plot No.19 is abutting the northern side of Plot No.20 and Vijayapura-Solapur Road runs North-South along the Eastern boundary of both plots. There is no underground drainage connection to both houses till today, as the drainage is situated across the road on the other side. It is said that there is also a culvert slightly on the southern side through which drain water is discharged from the western side of the Solapur Road to the eastern side. However, the size of the gutter on the eastern side of Solapur Road across the houses of the petitioners is insufficient and requires to be expanded in size. In this background, the petitioners made a request to Corporation to provide a drainage connection to their houses and to expand the size of the gutter across the road. But, the Corporation did not heed the request of the petitioners. Hence, the first petitioner was constrained to submit representations on 15/3/2022, 27/4/2022, and 16/9/2022 to the Corporation. It is said that no action is taken so far. Under these circumstances, the petitioners having left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, have filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents have urged several contentions. Counsel Sri.D.P.Ambekar., in presenting his arguments submits that inaction on the part of the third respondent in not providing an underground drainage connection to the houses of the petitioners is illegal and contrary to the law. He argued by saying that it is the duty of the Corporation to provide adequate drainage connection to the houses of the citizens and the same is covered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the right to hygienic and clean living is part of the right to life. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court in Municipal Council, Ratlam, vs. Vardhichand and others reported in AIR 1980 SC 1622, to contend that Justice Krishna Iyer way back in the year 1980 in the said decision has observed and held as under.