ORDER
G.D. Sharma, J.
1. The residents of Nundreshi Colony, Bemina, Srinagar (through their representatives namely, Molvi Masood Ahmad and Mst. Haleema Parveen) have prayed for the issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide them the facilities of drainage and roads as well as uninterrupted supply of electricity and potable drinking water. Their case is that at the time of laying out the said colony, respondent No. 1 had undertaken the liability to make available all the above said amenities but till date this promise has not been fulfilled. On the contrary, the colony has been allowed to become a breeding ground for mosquitoes and other bacteria borne diseases. Various representations were made from time to time to the concerned authorities but they bore no ameliorative effect. The petitioners have contended that they have a fundamental right to live a meaningful life and they should be treated at par with the inhabitants of other colonies such as of “Krishna Nagar Colony, Jammu” who are not denizens, like the petitioners in their dwellings.
2. In terms of the court order dated 24-7-1995, the Executive Engineer, DEED Srinagar was directed to make spot inspection and explore the possibility of laying out a plan to drain out the pooled water. The prepared scheme turned out to be truncated and on 21-9-1995, the Chief Engineer, UEED, Srinagar (respondent No. 6) along with Administrator Municipal Committee, Srinagar were directed to appear in person in the court and give their assessment of the situation. The Executive Engineer, UEED, Srinagar was again directed to show compliance to the court directions. Simultaneously, the Administrator Srinagar Municipality was authorised to convene a meeting of the concerned Heads of Departments including the Chief Engineer, UEED and the Vice-Chairman of the Srinagar Municipality to devise an action plan and redress the grievances in question immediately. The compliance report was to be submitted in the court within three weeks. Accordingly, the Administrator Srinagar Municipality (Mr. G. N. Kanth) had the meeting with the following officers :–
1. Chief Engineer, UEED Department;
2. Chief Engineer, Electricity;
3. Mr. M. A. Nazim, Executive Engineer, Master Plan, Water Supply Division, Srinagar;
4. Mr. Basharat Ahmad, SDA representing Vice-Chairman Srinagar Development Authority.
3. The report of the said committee states that “the Nundreshi Colony” is under the control and management of Srinagar Development Authority and all the infrastructures have to be provided by it. The Srinagar Development Authority vide its No. SDA/Ve/4998-99 dated 19-3-1992 had already requested the Housing and Urban Development Department to provide rupees 129 lakhs for laying out the drainage in the said colony and this cost has now escalated to rupees two crores. This is not the singular case which requires such treatment but the city of Srinagar is agog to consume colossal amounts running into hundred of crores of rupees to ameliorate the nauseating sanitary conditions of other similar colonies. A special treatment in favour of the petitioners will be a lopsided and loquacious affair. Respondent Administrator Municipality personally also appeared in the Court stated that paucity of funds is the stumbling block for providing all the requisite amenities.
4. Respondent No. 5 has filed the objections and contended that whole area of the locality in question has been fully electrified. The facility of supplying the electric current to the consumers has been made available which can be availed of after fulfilling the required formalities. The registered electricity connections number only 320 against the permissive capacity of 900 KVA supply which establishes pilferage by some unscrupulous residents. The petitioners have no fundamental right to claim any of the reliefs and as such the petition is not maintainable.
5. Mr. S. T. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that right to road is an access to live and is thus a fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners herein are being denied to live a meaningful and livable life with human dignity to provide these facilities. In support of his contention he has cited the case of Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 922, wherein it is held that the expression “life” as found in Article 21 of the Constitution does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It includes right to livelihood, better standard of life, hygienic conditions in work place and leisure. Expanded connotation of life would mean tradition and cultural heritage of the persons concerned.
6. The counsel appearing for the respondents have conceded the assertions of the petitioners. According to them, the respondents have no objection in case all the reliefs claimed are granted.
7. During the proceedings, the court had appointed a committee of the concerned high ranking officials to evaluate the grievances of the petitioners who have come up with a report that the amenities claimed by the
petitioners are of such a nature which are sought for by the other inhabitants of the city of Srinagar. Financial constrains occurring in the budgetary allotments are proving stumbling blocks for the redressal of the complaints. All the inhabitants are to be treated at the equal footing and the petitioners case cannot be considered in isolation.
8. Considering the case of the parties in its true perspective it can be said with no manner of doubt that respondents are under constitutional obligation to provide all the necessary facilities to the petitioners which make their existence meaningful and livable. Decency and dignity are non-negotiable facets of human rights and are first charge on the concerned respondents. Providing drainage and road system not pompous and attractive, but in working condition and sufficient to meet the needs of the people cannot he evaded if the concerned authorities have to justify their existence. Similarly, basic grievous amenity of access to potable water is not a luxury but a prerequisite to sustain life. Any plea of financial inability or discriminatory treatment raised by any concerned authority pates into insignificance because human rights granted under Part III of the Constitution have to be respected by the State regardless of budgetary provision. Otherwise, a pachydermic governmental agency may legally defy duties under the law by urging in self defence a self created bankruptcy or perverted expenditure budget.
9. The Apex Court had an opportunity to consider the case of Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 16 1/2 : (1980 Cri LJ 1075), which had arisen under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 123 of the Municipalities Act wherein the following observations were made for carrying out the statutory public duties : —
“Where there existed a public nuisance in a locality due to open drains, heaps of dirt, pits and public excretion by humans for want of lavatories and consequential breeding of mosquitoes; the Court would require the Municipality under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. and in view of Section 123 of the Municipalities Act to abate the nuisance by taking affirmative action on a time bound basis. When such order was given, the Municipality could not take the plea that notwithstanding the public nuisance financial inability validity exonerated it from statutory liability. The Cr.P.C. operates against statutory bodies and others regardless of the cash in their coffers, even as human rights under Part II of the Constitution have to be respected regardless of budgetary provision,”
10. The ratio decidendi of the above stated cases applies in all fours to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to provide the amenities claimed by the petitioners within reasonable limits within a period of six months. The petition is disposed of accordingly along with connected CMPs.