M J Antony: Taking a cue from the Supreme Court

OUT OF COURT

Several high courts have also passed orders seeking to improve living conditions in towns in their states.

Clouds of another confrontation between the judiciary under the new Chief Justice and the government seem to be taking shape over the issue of commercialisation of residential areas in the national capital. The centre and the municipal authorities have moved applications for "modifying" the sealing orders till the court delivers its final judgement based on the Master Plan 2021. The hearing is set for Friday, just when the sealing of shops in unauthorised areas is set to be resumed.

The high courts in the rest of the country and municipal authorities are watching the orders of the Supreme Court as the problem is not of Delhi alone but afflicts every metropolis and small towns. In fact, the Supreme Court orders produce a cascading effect on the high courts while tackling similar complaints from citizens.

Some high courts like that of Gujarat did not wait for the citizens to move public interest litigation to take affirmative action on its own. On its own motion, it passed several orders last year to improve the civic conditions. There was heavy water logging due to incessant rains every year and garbage was not collected by the civic authorities. These were only two of the civic ills suffered by Ahmedabad. Among the orders passed, the high court asked the government hospitals to keep their premises clean, local bodies were told to carry out the cleansing operations before the monsoon to avoid choking of drainage, directions were issued to the railway, the police, the development authority and the education department to keep their areas clean. The government shall provide assistance to the civic bodies, the high court said, pointing out that non-availability of funds was no ground for non-performance of the statutory duties of the state government and the civic authorities in the matter of providing hygienic conditions to society.

Smaller towns also came under the scan of the high courts. The Bombay high court dealt with encroachments, lack of parking space and hawkers' rights in Chandrapur, a town in Maharashtra in the case, Vinayak Bapat vs Supt of Police. The public interest petition alleged that unauthorised parking obstructed public roads leading to houses, and congestion in commercial areas affected the environment. The court stated that these were violations of Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, the Motor Vehicles Act and the Bombay Police Act. Prosecution and ultimate punishment could not be the solution. There should be immediate action. The court set up a monitoring committee to observe the situation. Regarding encroachments and unauthorised structures, the court applied the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act and Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. They were granted protection with a deadline beyond which it would not operate. Heavy costs can also be imposed on the local authorities acting in collusion with the encroachers.

Regarding the hawkers, the court said that they had no fundamental right to continue hawking to the prejudice of the common citizens. Mere long possession and use cannot be an answer to tilt balance in their favour, when in the other pan of the balance, the court has to weigh the interest of the public at large. Even the threat of losing their source of livelihood cannot by itself be a circumstance in their favour, the court emphasised. It may be noted that the Supreme Court is currently dealing with the petitions of hawkers in Mumbai to lay down some guidelines on areas where they can carry on their trade.

In another PIL, Gangrang vs State of Maharashtra, the Bombay high court dealt with the traffic chaos in Mumbai. It said that a duty is cast on the police to control and regulate traffic. If any vehicle caused traffic hazard, the police officer has the power to remove the vehicle with the help of the towing service. At present there were no guidelines for the selection of contractors for towing. The court directed the joint commissioner of police to frame the norms.

Several cities are grappling with the issue of shutting down crowded and unhygienic slaughter houses and establishing modern abattoirs. However, these efforts are also caught in prolonged legal battles as in the case of Delhi and Meerut. The Supreme Court has not been able to solve the Delhi problem for years as the setting up of a state-of-the-art abattoir with foreign collaboration was resisted even by the Air Force, alleging that it would invite birds to their nearby base. It back-tracked only when it was told that the existing slaughter houses posed a greater hazard and a modern one would leave no waste. However, the persistence and zeal of the Supreme Court should inspire the high courts to deal with the urban problems in their respective states.