Case Brief: L.K. Koolwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Name of the Case	L.K. Koolwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation	MANU/RH/0002/1988
Date of the Judgement	19.09.1986
Petitioner	L.K. Koolwa, Legal Aid cell and others
Defendants	Municipal Council
Bench/ Judges	D.L. Mehta J.
Statutes Involved	Constitution of India and Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959
Important Articles/ Sections	Article 51 A of Constituion of India

FACTS 

L.K. Koolwal, a resident of Jaipur, filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court, highlighting severe sanitation problems in the city. A good number of affidavits have been filed by the citizens of Jaipur relating to each of the localities referred to in the writ petition to show that the sanitation problem is acute in Jaipur, which is hazardous to the lives of the citizens. The contention was that Jaipur Municipality was failing to fulfill its statutory obligation under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, specifically regarding the cleaning of public spaces and the removal of filth, rubbish, and other hazardous waste. Integration leads to a slow poisoning and adversely affects the life of the citizen and reduces life expectancy. 

PROVISIONS INVOLVED 

Constitution of India 

Article 51 A: fundamental duties 

Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty 

Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 

Section 98: It is the duty of every board to make the reasonable provision referred to therein within the municipality under its authority. 

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

1. Whether the municipality is excused from its primary responsibilities because of a paucity of funds or staff? 
2. Whether Article 51 A is enforceable only against private parties, as it casts duties upon them, or could be enforceable against the state as well?  

PETITIONER’S SIDE OF ARGUMENT 

It is argued from the petitioner’s side that, 

1. The petitioners held that while the municipal board had taken some steps to remove the dirt, filth etc, and provide some hygienic conditions, but they were not satisfied with the extent of such measures. 
2. The advocate of the petitioners held that a special effort has to be made by the municipality, as the sanitation problem is throughout the city. 

DEFENDANT’S SIDE OF ARGUMENT 

The defendant argued that, 

1. The advocate for the defendant's side submit that the municipality is trying its best to implement the provision of Section 98. 
2. They submitted that the municipality had effectively taken some steps in the area and though the problem existed, but the quantum has been reduced. 

JUDGMENT 

The court upheld that rights and duties coexist. There cannot be any rights without duty, and there cannot be any duty without right. Article 51 of the Constitution which has been inserted in 1976 in the Constitution of India, ordinarily deals with the duties of citizen, but it is in fact the right of the citizens, as it creates the right in favor of the citizens to move to see that the state performs its duties faithfully and the obligatory and primary duties are performed in accordance with the law of the land. 

The court has also held that citizens have a right to know about the activities of the state, the instrumentalities, the departments, and the agencies of state. The concept of secrecy, which was prevalent in old times, is not in existence anymore. 

The court interpreted Article 51 A as a provision that gives a right to the citizen to move to the court for the enforcement of the duties cast on state instrumentalities, agencies, departments, local bodies, and statutory authorities created under the particular law of the state. 

The court held that it is the primary duty of the municipal council to remove filth, rubbish, night soil order, or any other noxious or offensive matter. The primary duties will have to be performed by the municipal polic,e and there cannot be any plea whether the funds are available or not, whether the staff is available or not. It is for the municipality to see how to perform the primary duties and how to raise resources for the performance of these duties. Additionally, the court observed that the measures taken by the municipalities previously were not sufficient. 

The court upheld the view that the problem of sanitation is very acute in Jaipur city, and it is creating a hazard to life of the citizens. 

The board directed the municipality. Remove the dirt filled etcetera, within a period of six months, and clean the entire Jaipur city and particularly in relation to the areas mentioned in the list submitted by the petitioner. 

The court directed a team of five advocates, Commissioners in this cas,e to inspect the city with the petitioner and Administrator, Municipality, and to submit the report about the implementation of the provisions of Section 98. 

CONCLUSION 

This case established the right to a clean and healthy environment as a fundamental right. Municipalities are strictly obliged to maintain sanitation, and citizens have the right to seek intervention when these obligations are not met. The court set an essential precedent that in performance of the primary duties, no excuse can be taken, and they are a primary, mandator,y and obligatory duty to perform the same.  

REFERENCES

1. L.K. Koolwal vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (19.09.1986 - RAJHC) : MANU/RH/0002/1988