Municipalities have a duty to address public nuisances and comply with directives from human rights entities, including timely removal of hazards.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Lal Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader for R1 and R2 and Sri. R. Azad Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent Municipality.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court complaining about the existence of three drums in front of a commercial building owned by the second petitioner herein, within the jurisdiction of the 3^rd respondent Municipality. The case of the petitioners is that, on account of the existence of the three drums as above, garbage is being deposited therein, on account of which nuisance is being created to the petitioners. Pointing out the afore, the petitioners have already approached the Municipality, the Health Authorities, as well as the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission, pursuant to Ext.P5 dated 24.05.2022, had already issued directions for removal of the drums placed in front of the petitioners' building. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to implement the directions issued by the Human Rights Commission.

3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the

3^rd respondent, wherein it is stated as under:

“The 3rd Respondent had taken steps to implement Ext.P5 order passed by the Human Rights Commission. At present on site inspection, it was seen that there are no accumulation any waste causing health hazards or nuisance to the petitioner of the nearby residents. Organic and inorganic wastes are collected from the locality and the households, segregated and removed routinely using the vehicles belonging to the municipality. The bins seen put up in front of the shops of the petitioner is not by the municipality, but by some nearby residents. The petitioner himself can remove the same. A notice dated 25.06.2025 was issued by the municipality to the petitioner informing the same.”

4. A reading of the afore would show that ultimately the Municipality is shifting the burden of removing the drums to the shoulder of the petitioners herein. The Municipality states that as of now, there is no accumulation of waste causing health hazards or nuisance to the petitioners. It is also stated by the Municipality that the petitioner can remove the drums by himself. Insofar as the drums have not been placed in front of the commercial building owned by the 2^nd petitioner by the Municipality, in my opinion, the same requires to be removed, especially when the Municipality admits that it has not placed the drums.

In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand disposed of, directing the Municipality to take note of Ext.P5 and to remove the drums placed in front of the petitioners' commercial premises as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

Sd/-