SUO MOTU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(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 :-

(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.