Back
1999 Supreme(Gau) 260
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Brijesh Kumar, D.Biswas, JJ.
Gautam Uzir -Appellant
Versus
Guwahati Municipal Corporation and Ors. -Respondent
CR (PIL) No. 12 of 1998 and PIL No. 9 of 1999
Decided On : 10-08-1999
N.Dutta, P.Bhattacharyya , B.C.Das, T.J.Mahanta, S.N.Sharma
The GMC and the State Government have a heavy responsibility to provide sufficient and clean water to the people under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
WATER SUPPLY - GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - DUTY TO SUPPLY SUFFICIENT AND CLEAN WATER - FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS - NEED FOR AUGMENTATION OF EXISTING PLANTS AND SETTING UP OF NEW PLANTS - RESPONSIBILITY OF STATE GOVERNMENT - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION - PREPARATION OF AFFORDABLE SCHEMES TO IMPROVE WATER SUPPLY IN PHASES - FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE CORPORATION TO BE IMPROVED - HUDCO LOAN PROPOSAL - SCHEME TO BE PLACED BEFORE THE COURT WITHIN THREE MONTHS.
Fact of the Case:
Two public interest petitions were filed highlighting the scarcity and impurity of potable water in Guwahati. The Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) admitted its responsibility to supply sufficient and clean water but cited financial constraints as a hindrance. The State Government also acknowledged the problem and the need for augmentation of existing plants and setting up of new plants.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the GMC and the State Government have a heavy responsibility to provide sufficient and clean water to the people under Article 21 of the Constitution. It found that the GMC had not taken serious interest in mitigating the problem within its means and had not explored its potential resources or pursued the arrears of taxes. The court also noted that the State Government had not provided any financial assistance to the GMC.
Issues: 1. Whether the GMC and the State Government have a responsibility to provide sufficient and clean water to the people? 2. Whether the GMC has taken adequate steps to improve the water supply situation within its means? 3. Whether the State Government has provided financial assistance to the GMC to improve the water supply situation?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, to hold that the GMC and the State Government have a heavy responsibility to provide sufficient and clean water to the people. It also noted that the GMC had not taken serious interest in mitigating the problem within its means and had not explored its potential resources or pursued the arrears of taxes. The court further held that the State Government had not provided any financial assistance to the GMC.
Final Decision: The court directed the GMC and the State Government to prepare schemes of affordable amounts which may improve the situation of water supply in phases. The GMC was also directed to take all steps for its better financial position. The court also directed the respondents to place the scheme before the Court within a period of three months and indicate the status of the HUDCO loan proposal.
These are two petitions filed in public interest one by Shri Gautam Uzir, namely, Civil Rule (PEL) No. 12 of 1998, and the other by Shri Santanu Bharali, namely, PIL No. 9 of 1999.
2. In Civil Rule (PIL) No. 12 of 1998, the petitioner appears personally, who is not present. Shri N. Dutta, learned counsel appears for the petitioner in PEL No. 9 of 1999. We have heard the learned State Counsel, Shri BC Das, and Shri SN Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the Guwahati Municipal Corporation.
3. The problem which has been highlighted in both these petitions relates to potable water-its scarcity and impurity, both. It is the responsibility of the Corporation to supply sufficient drinking water, which should also be clean and drinkable. Ultimately, the State has also to be concerned about this primary and essential need of the public. So far responsibility part is concerned, we find the same has not been denied. In that connection, we may like to refer to certain averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation in PIL No. 9 of 1999. In paragraph 6, it is stated thus:
“That the deponent begs to state that the Corporation is well aware about its duties with regard to supply of drinking water to the citizens, but due to its financial constraints, it could not augment its existing plant.”
4. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it is indicated that the daily requirement of water in the city of Guwahati is 150 MLD at the rate of 150 litres per capita. The existing water supply system against the installed capacity of 80 MLD, at present 55.40 MLD has been supplied daily from different installations. It is further stated in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition that there is no scope of expansion of the existing plants due to space constraint. However, if new plants are set up and the old plants are augmented, then it will be possible to meet the present requirement of water in Guwahati City. We thus find atleast this much is admitted that the Corporation owes responsibility to the people to supply sufficient and clean water and presently the supply is a little over 30 percent of the total requirement.
5. According to the Corporation, the old plants are to be augmented and new plants are to be set up. There arises the question of raising funds to meet the expenses, for which purpose the Corporation as well as the State Govt seem to be dependent upon some outside help, namely, from Japan, France or World Bank, or any other agency as may be possible. Ultimately, it comes out from the affidavit-in-opposition placed on the record that no such help is coming from any corner. Therefore, care has to be taken by the Govt and the Corporation itself to discharge their responsibilities to provide sufficient and clean water to the people.
6. We also find that the Central Govt advised the Corporation to approach HUDCO to advance some money t6 improve the water supply position. The affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No.5 indicates that the Corporation has actually submitted a proposal amounting to Rs. 162.71 crores to cover the Eastern Part of Guwahati to the HUDCO for loan assistance. Another request has been made to HUDCO through the State Govt for an amount of Rs. 115.71 crores for covering the Central Part of Guwahati. Nothing has, however, been indicated as to when these proposals are submitted and what response the Corporation has received from HUDCO. It is also indicated that neither the State Govt nor the Central Govt has provided any financial assistance in the matter.
7. So far the State Govt is concerned, we find that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in PIL No. 12 of 1998. In paragraph 8 of the said affidavit-in-opposition it has been stated that the Guwahati Municipal Corporation has been trying its best with its limited resources to extend all civic facilities and amenities, such as, construction of roads, drains, footpaths, providing drinking wa
