NATIONAL CONSUMERS PROTECTION SAMITI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court seeking directions on the respondent No. 2-Corporation to discharge its obligatory duties under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and to provide all essential services to the residents of Krishnanagar Housing Colony.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is a Public Charitable Trust, whose main objects are said to be of carrying on activities for the benefit of consumers. The petitioner No. 2 is a resident of the Krishnanagar Housing Colony. It is situate at Saijpur Bogha, Naroda, which area has been included in the city of Ahmedabad since February 1986. At the appropriate direction to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to take over water supply in Krishnanagar Housing Colony, Ahmedabad. hearing of this petition, it was not disputed that the area of the said residential colony has been included within the city of Ahmedabad. It appears that the Krishnanagar Housing Colony was constructed under the Low Income Group Scheme by the respondent No. 3 - the Gujarat Housing Board and there are more than 2,000 flats which were given to the members of the Scheme on hire purchase basis. The Scheme was materialised in the year 1967 and the Housing Board had made provisions for essential services like, water supply, drainage, street lights, etc., for the residents of the said Housing Colony. According to the petitioners, after the area was included in the city of Ahmedabad from 23/02/1986, the respondent No. 2-Municipal Corporation became responsible for reasonable and adequate provisions for making essential services available to the residents of the Colony. It appears that there are various registered agencies of the members to whom the houses are allotted under the Scheme and they are governed by the regulations of the Housing Board as regards common portions and common services of the buildings in question. There is also a Central Federation of the registered agencies. It appears that the conservancy tax is recovered by the Corporation from the house-owners/ occupiers of the said area. The residents of the Colony through their Central Federation had made a representation on 4/01/1988 to the Municipal Corporation requesting for providing all the essential services which were being hitherto provided by the Gujarat Housing Board. It appears that the hire purchase period was over in the year 1987 and the residents who had paid up all instalments were to be the owners of their respective flats and the conveyances were to be executed by the Board in their favour. The residents of the said Colony, therefore, expected the Municipal Corporation to provide the basic amenities to them as is being done to the other inhabitants of the Municipal areas.

(3.) It was contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Corporation was liable to provide water facility to the inhabitants of the city and it ought to take over the water works which were operated by the Gujarat Housing Board for supplying water to the residents of the said Colony or in the alternative, supply water to the residents of the said Colony. It was further contended that the Corporation should treat the internal road as a public road and look after its maintenance. As regards drainage, it was submitted that the grievance of the petitioner did not survive since the drainage facility has already been provided in the said area during the pendency of the petition.