Back
2008 Supreme(Del) 717
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL,T.S.THAKUR
PRASIDHY CHAUHAN - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 2737/2007
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 2985/2007
Decided On : 04-07-2008
None.
Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate for GNCTD.
Mr. O.P. Saxena, Advocate for the respondent.
Ms. Sadhana Sharma, Advocate for DJB in WP(C)
The judgment emphasizes that the Right to Life includes the right to live with human dignity, and the state must ensure basic amenities for individuals to live with dignity.
Headnote:
Right to Life - Jhuggi Dwellers' Relocation - State of Maharahtra Vs. Chandra Bhan (1983) 3 SC 387, Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545
Fact of the Case:
Jhuggi dwellers filed petitions seeking to restrain officials from dispossessing and demolishing their jhuggies, or alternatively, to relocate them with basic amenities. The court appointed a Local Commissioner to verify the amenities at relocation sites.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relocation sites provided basic amenities, but noted shortcomings that needed to be addressed. It directed the official-respondents to remedy the shortcomings before the monsoons to ensure a decent standard of living.
Issues: The main issue was whether the relocation sites provided basic amenities necessary for the jhuggi dwellers to live with human dignity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the Right to Life under Article 21, as established in State of Maharahtra Vs. Chandra Bhan and Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, to ensure the jhuggi dwellers' right to live with human dignity.
Final Decision: The petitions were partly allowed, and the court directed the official-respondents to address and remedy the shortcomings at the relocation sites to ensure a decent standard of living for the relocated jhuggi dwellers.
1. The present petitions were filed by jhuggi dwellers in occupation of Water Body Ring Road, Naraina and Indira Market, J J Clusters, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi respectively, praying for a writ, order or direction to restrain the official-respondents from dispossessing the petitioners and demolishing their jhuggies and alternatively for relocating the petitioners at the proposed site only after making provision for basic human amenities.
2. Counsel for the official-respondents appeared in response to the petitions and submitted that pursuant to a direction issued by a Division Bench of this Court, demolition action had already been undertaken and that arrangements for allotment of alternative sites under a scheme for relocation of the jhuggi dwellers were being made. Pursuant to our direction in this behalf, the respondents filed a status report indicating in detail the amenities and arrangements provided at the relocation sites.
3. The Supreme Court of India in State of Maharahtra Vs. Chandra Bhan reported as (1983) 3 SC 387 followed by the celebrated decision in Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation reported as (1985) 3 SCC 545 has held that the Right to Life, enshrined in Article 21 means more than survival or animal existence and would include the right to live with human dignity. It further held that, that which alone can make it possible to live must be declared to be an integral component of the right to live. In this view of the matter, so as to ensure that the petitioners as well as other jhuggi dwellers displaced by the demolitions may live with dignity, it became imperative for this court to ascertain that the relocation sites to which the jhuggi dwellers were being sent had all basic amenities like drinking water, electricity, roads, toilets, drainage, school, transport and medical facilities necessary to secure the inalienable and absolute right to live with human dignity in a reasonable and decent environment. Accordingly, vide our order dated 17th May, 2007, we appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the relocation site at Swaran Jayanti Vihar, Tikari Khurd, Narela, Site-I and verify the existence of the amenities provided to the jhuggi dwellers, as mentioned in the status reports filed on behalf of official-respondents.
4. The Commissioner appointed by this Court filed his report on the 11th July, 2007. A copy of the said report was made available to the counsel for the parties so as to enable them to examine the report and file their objections thereto, if any.
5. In spite of two opportunities in this behalf no objections were filed either on behalf of petitioners or the respondents. Perusal of the report filed by the Local Commissioner in compliance of order dated 17th May, 2007, reflects that the three relocation sites to which the petitioners have been shifted provide facilities as follows: 10. SWARAN JAYANTI VIHAR, TIKARI KHURD, NARELA, SITE-I (DATE OF VISIT: 28.05.2007) A: WATER SUPPLY: I found that there are 6 (Six) Tube-wells in the area as shown in the rough sketch and as per the following description:- i) Pump A-1 situated at A Block is working. ii) Pump B-1 situated at B-Block is working. iii) Pump B-4 situated at B Block is working. iv) Pump C-4 situated at C Block is working. v) Pump C-6 situated at C Block is not working. vi) B-1 Main Pump (Ground Water Reservoir) was not in operation and MCD officials informed me that this is so because no water connection has been provided from Delhi Jal Board. As regards 15 storage tanks of 5000 liter capacity, it is humbly submitted that water was available. However, some of them are not in functioning condition. B. TOILET/BATHS: (i) I noticed that there is 1(one) Jan Suvidha Complex (JSC) in this area. However, it has been found locked at the time of my visit of that area on 28.5.2007. Local residents complained that this JSC has not been in use for quite some time. (ii) Sewer line facility has been laid in this area but the s
