Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand

Residents of a ward in Ratlam asked a Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order the Municipality to clean up open drains, open latrines and factory effluent. The Municipality said it had no money. The Supreme Court held that a lack of funds is no defence to a statutory duty, and approved a cheaper scheme with a one year deadline.

Quick Revision

Read the full judgment: Indian Kanoon (unofficial copy)

Parties

Municipal Council, Ratlam — petitioner (appellant); the municipal body of Ratlam. It was non-applicant No. 1 before the Magistrate.

Shri Vardhichand and others — respondents 1 to 5 before this Court; residents of a ward of Ratlam who applied to the Magistrate.

Town Improvement Trust — non-applicant No. 2 before the Magistrate. It said the primary responsibility lay with the Municipal Council.

State of Madhya Pradesh — represented before this Court by counsel, after the Court issued notice to it on the Municipality's plea of financial inability.

Procedural History

1. The residents' application of 12 May 1972 led the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratlam, to make a conditional order under Section 133 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. It required the nuisances to be removed within 15 days (Krishna Iyer, J.).
2. The Municipal Council sought six times to produce evidence, but produced none. The Town Improvement Trust also produced none. The Magistrate inspected the site (Krishna Iyer, J.).
3. The Magistrate found the facts proved and made the final order to provide the amenities and abate the nuisance. The order was for the health and convenience of the people of the area. A notice under Section 141 of the old Code was to issue to non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2, so that all works were done within the stipulated period. He then finalised the case (Krishna Iyer, J.).
4. The conditional order had allowed objections on the next date of hearing. The applicants examined witnesses and filed documents, and both sides were heard (Krishna Iyer, J.).
5. The Sessions Court found the order unjustified (Krishna Iyer, J.).
6. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Criminal Revision No. 392 of 1976, upheld the Magistrate's order by judgment dated 6 August 1979 (Krishna Iyer, J.).
7. The Municipality filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2856 of 1979. The Court issued notice to the State on the plea of financial inability (Krishna Iyer, J.).
8. The Court decided the petition on 29 July 1980 (Krishna Iyer, J.).

Facts

1. Ratlam is a populous town where affluence and poverty live side by side. Ward No. 12, New Road has bungalows and toilets, while the poor live on pavements and use roadsides as latrines (Krishna Iyer, J.).
2. The Municipality kept public sanitation a low priority. Cesspools and filth threatened public health. The residents' demand for basic sanitation and public drains went unheard (Krishna Iyer, J.).
3. Another cause was the discharge of malodorous fluids from the Alcohol Plant into the public street. Mosquitoes bred in the stagnant stream (Krishna Iyer, J.).
4. A dirty nala ran in the middle of New Road. It received chemical, foul-smelling water from the Alcohol Plant and bred mosquitoes (Krishna Iyer, J.).
5. The Municipality had built a drain on the southern side, but left it incomplete. Dirty water and septic tank water ran onto open land and into houses (Krishna Iyer, J.).
6. Slums nearby had no lavatories. Slum dwellers relieved themselves on the bank of the drain or on adjacent land. Other drains did not flow properly (Krishna Iyer, J.).
7. The Malaria Department of the State paid no attention. Water accumulated on the road and entered houses, and snakes and scorpions came out. The road built by the Nagarpalika was on a high level, so more water entered houses that year (Krishna Iyer, J.).
8. The residents submitted notices and personally approached the non-applicants, who avoided their duty by blaming each other (Krishna Iyer, J.).
9. The residents asked for four things: complete and manage the drains, close and clear the pits and earthen drains, cover the big nala, and have the Malaria Department spray D.D.T. (Krishna Iyer, J.).
10. The Nallah affects the Mohallas of New Road, Shastri Colony and Volga Talkies, in the heart of the city between the Railway Station and the main city (Krishna Iyer, J.).
11. The nallah was not straight, water did not flow rapidly, and deep pits held dirty water. It could not carry the rainy water, and the adjoining areas flooded (Krishna Iyer, J.).
12. The evidence showed that the Power Alcohol factory, outside the Municipal Council's premises, sent dirty water into the nallah (Krishna Iyer, J.).
13. Water from lavatories and urinals had no outlet. Pits on the southern side of New Road were full of stinking water (Krishna Iyer, J.).
14. The Nallah was shown as the property of the Nagarpalika by Exhibit P-10. The Municipality said it is disputed whether it belongs to it or to the Town Improvement Trust (Krishna Iyer, J.).
15. Sections 32 to 43 of the Town Improvement Trust Act give it only the power to make plans. Shastri Colony lies within the Trust's area (Krishna Iyer, J.).
16. The Municipal Council said it was financially very weak, but not careless of its duties. The Trust said the primary responsibility lies with the Municipal Council only, and that there is no drainage system (Krishna Iyer, J.).
17. The Nallah comes into the picture after the construction of the road and bridge. Many applications to remove the nuisance brought no result, and the Council and the Trust always tried to throw the responsibility on one another (Krishna Iyer, J.).
18. The Magistrate held that all the works done by the non-applicants, the drain, canal and road, come within the purview of public nuisance. He held that they were careless in their duties towards the public (Krishna Iyer, J.).
19. He found that the Nallah is not managed properly by the non-applicants and cannot carry the rainy water. The adjoining areas suffer overflow, which obstructs pedestrians. It is the bounden duty of the Municipal Council and the Trust to do the needful about the Alcohol Plant discharge (Krishna Iyer, J.).
20. He concluded that, after the evidence and the residents' applications, the non-applicants took no steps whatsoever to remove the public nuisances (Krishna Iyer, J.).
21. The Municipality's plea was that the residents came to the locality on their own choice, aware of the insanitary conditions, and could not complain. It also pleaded financial difficulties (Krishna Iyer, J.).

Issues Raised

1. Can a court, by affirmative action, compel a statutory body to carry out its duty to the community by constructing sanitation facilities at great cost and on a time-bound basis?
2. Does Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply wherever there is a public nuisance, and is the Magistrate's power a mandatory duty?
3. Is financial inability a valid defence for the Municipality against its duty under Section 123 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961?
4. Can the Municipality argue that the residents chose to live there and cannot complain?
5. Is the time limit in the Magistrate's order unworkable, and what modification is needed?

Arguments Contended

For the petitioner (Municipal Council), Mr. Sobhag Mal Jain and Mr. S.K. Jain:

• The owners of houses went to the locality on their own choice, fully aware of the insanitary conditions, and so could not complain (headnote; before the High Court).
• The Municipality is financially weak. It cannot construct drains and amenities without funds.
• The time specified in the order is unworkable, and further time should be given (before the High Court).
• The Municipality asked the Court to be pragmatic and not to force impracticable orders on a body without the means to carry them out.

For the Town Improvement Trust (before the Magistrate):

• The primary responsibility lies with the Municipal Council. There is no drainage system.

For the Municipal Council (before the Magistrate):

• The Nallah is disputed: it is not settled whether it belongs to non-applicant 1 (the Municipality) or non-applicant 2 (the Trust). Shastri Colony is within the Trust's area.
• The Municipality is financially very weak, but not careless towards its duties. It sought six times to produce evidence but produced none.
• Before the High Court it made a doleful statement about financial difficulties and assured that drains would be built as soon as possible. It accepted no specific time limit.

For the respondents (Mr. C.S. Chhazed, Miss Manisha Gupta and Mr. M.S. Gupta) and the State (Mr. S.K. Gambhir): the judgment does not set out their submissions separately. It records that no plea of choice of residence was made before this Court, and that the State was represented by counsel.

Court's Reasoning

The judgment is by Krishna Iyer, J. for the Bench of V.R. Krishna Iyer and O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ. The judgment has no numbered paragraphs, so each step ends with the judge's name.

Krishna Iyer, J. (for the Bench)

The nature of the case

1. Noted: The Court says procedural rules infuse life into substantive rights. What looks like a pedestrian quasi-criminal case under Section 133 raises issues of access to justice beyond the narrow rules of standing. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
2. Noted: The Court says that if the centre of gravity of justice is to shift from the individualism of locus standi to the community orientation of public interest litigation, these issues must be considered. The case is a path-finder in people's involvement in the justice process. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
3. Noted: The key question is whether a court can compel a statutory body by affirmative action to build sanitation facilities at great cost and on a time-bound basis. It concerns the coming of age of the branch of public law on community actions. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
4. Noted: The circumstances are typical of Third World cities, and the answers are of universal application. (Krishna Iyer, J.)

The Municipality's duty and the Magistrate's order

1. Noted: Section 123(1) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 makes it the duty of a Council to make reasonable and adequate provision for cleansing public streets, places and sewers, removing noxious vegetation and abating public nuisances. Clause (c) covers disposing of night-soil and rubbish. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
2. Held: The Municipality was oblivious to this obligation and was directly guilty of breach of duty, public nuisance and active neglect. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
3. Noted: The Court remarks that the Municipality rushed from court to court. It says litigation with other people's funds is an intoxicant, while public service is an inspiration. It says the money spent on litigation could have gone to drains and the people's shramdan. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
4. Held: The Magistrate's activist use of Section 133 deserves the Court's appreciation. The Sessions Court wrongly found his order unjustified, and the High Court rightly upheld it. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
5. Noted: The Magistrate's order is quoted at length. It directed the Town Improvement Trust and the Municipal Council to prepare a permanent plan for the nala within six months. Both must also take proper action to give the plan a concrete form. It also directed a proper drainage system in the places described in the Magistrate's order, where there is either the same drain or no drain. Where there is no drain within their own premises it is to be built immediately, and all this work is to be completed within six months. The Municipal Council must build drains from the jail to the bridge, behind the southern side of the houses, to channel septic tank and other water so that it stops stinking and flows to the main Nallah, within six months. The pits are to be covered with mud within two months. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
6. Noted: The Court proceeds on the footing that the Magistrate's findings on municipal callousness are true, and it does not re-evaluate factual findings except in exceptional cases. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
7. Noted: The Court remarks, calling it perhaps a cynical obiter, that municipal bodies without the people and with bureaucrats may be no better than under the British. (Krishna Iyer, J.)

Section 133 and Section 188

1. Noted: Section 133(1) lets a Magistrate on information make a conditional order requiring the person causing an unlawful obstruction or nuisance in a public place to remove it within a fixed time. If he objects, he must appear and show cause why the order should not be made absolute. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
2. Held: The guns of Section 133 go into action wherever there is a public nuisance. The Magistrate's public power is a public duty to the victims, and he must use it when the jurisdictional facts are present. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
3. Held: Discretion becomes a duty when the beneficiary brings home the circumstances for its benign exercise. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
4. Noted: Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code punishes disobedience of a public servant's order that causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety. The punishment is up to six months, or a fine up to Rs 1,000, or both. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
5. Held: There is no difficulty in locating who must abate the public nuisance caused by the absence of primary sanitary facilities. Section 123 is mandatory. (Krishna Iyer, J.)

Financial inability is no defence

1. Noted: The Municipality's plea is not that the facts are wrong, but that the law is not right because its funds are insufficient. This plea made the Court issue notice to the State. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
2. Held: The plea that financial inability exonerates the Municipality from statutory liability has no juridical basis. The Criminal Procedure Code operates against statutory bodies regardless of the cash in their coffers. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
3. Held: This is like human rights under Part III, which the State must respect regardless of budgetary provision. Section 123 has no saving clause when the council is penniless. Otherwise a profligate body could defy its duties by self-created bankruptcy. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
4. Held: Section 133 is categoric, although it reads as discretionary. Judicial discretion, when the facts for its exercise are present, has a mandatory import. The Magistrate shall act, and order removal of the nuisance within a fixed time. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
5. Held: This is a public duty implicit in the public power, exercised on behalf of the public in a public proceeding. Failure to comply is punishable under Section 188. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
6. Held: The Municipal Commissioner or other executive authority bound by the order must obey it. Disobedience that causes obstruction, annoyance or injury to persons pursuing their employment is punishable with simple imprisonment or fine. It is aggravated if it tends to cause danger to human health or safety. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
7. Held: "The imperative tone of s. 133 Cr.P.C. read with the punitive temper of s. 188 I.P.C. make the prohibitory act a mandatory duty". (Krishna Iyer, J.)

Social justice and access to justice

1. Held: Although the two Codes are of ancient vintage, the Constitution gives them a social justice orientation and makes them a remedial weapon of versatile use. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
2. Held: Social justice is due to the people, so the people must be able to trigger the jurisdiction of a functionary like a Magistrate. The judiciary must be informed by access to justice, needed in developing countries and obligated by Article 38. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
3. Noted: The Court cites Prof. Kojima on the need to focus on the ordinary man. It also cites Cappelletti and Garth's Access to Justice on the shift to social justice in procedural justice, while retaining core values of traditional procedural justice. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
4. Held: Public nuisance from pollutants discharged by big factories to the detriment of poorer sections is a challenge to the social justice component of the rule of law. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
5. Held: The failure of local authorities to provide public conveniences drives slum dwellers to ease themselves in the streets. Dignity becomes a difficult art. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
6. Held: "Decency and dignity are non-negotiable facets of human rights and are a first charge on local self-governing bodies". A municipal council cannot run away from its principal duty by pleading financial inability. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
7. Held: Drainage systems must be in working condition and sufficient for the people's needs, and not pompous and attractive. The municipality cannot evade them if it is to justify its existence. (Krishna Iyer, J.)

The Magistrate's approach and affirmative action

1. Held: The Magistrate's approach is impeccable, although in places he seems influenced by the fact that cultured and educated people live in the area. In India rich or poor, the law will call to order where people's rights are violated. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
2. Held: What should also have been emphasised is the neglect of the State Malaria Department to eliminate mosquitoes, with open drains, dirt, public excretion and slums nearby. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
3. Held: An order to abate the nuisance by affirmative action on a time-bound basis is justified. The judicial process is not purely adjudicatory, and the court is not only an umpire. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
4. Held: Affirmative action to make the remedy effective is of the essence of the right, which otherwise becomes sterile. The court, armed with the two Codes and Section 123, must adventure into positive directions. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
5. Held: Section 133 authorises a time limit and specific directives. The Court sees no reason to disagree with the Magistrate's order. (Krishna Iyer, J.)

The High Court's view

1. Held: The High Court took a correct view and followed Govind Singh v. Shanti Sarup ([1979] 2 SCC 267, 279). In matters involving the health, safety and convenience of the public, the safer course is to accept the Magistrate's view. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
2. Held: The Court agrees with the High Court in rejecting the plea that the time in the order is unworkable. It is unfortunate that such contentions were raised in 1979, after proceedings pending since 1972. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
3. Noted: The High Court said direction No. 1 only required a plan to be evolved and started within six months. The Magistrate rightly fixed no time for completing the plan. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
4. Held: The plea that the residents chose to live there is strange and was justly repelled. A public body constituted to ensure sanitation and health cannot outrage the court by such an ugly plea. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
5. Noted: No such contention was advanced before this Court. The High Court had turned down further time, since the municipality accepted no time limit. The financial difficulties and assurances had no meaning after seven years. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
6. Held: The High Court was also right in rejecting the Additional Sessions Judge's view that Section 133 does not provide for enforcing civic rights. Wherever there is a public nuisance, the presence of Section 133 must be felt. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
7. Held: The Court upholds the High Court's view of the law and its affirmation of the Magistrate's order. (Krishna Iyer, J.)

Revising the order into a workable scheme

1. Held: Law is realistic and not idealistic, and what cannot be performed cannot be prescribed as a norm. But the Court cannot consent to a value judgment where people's health is a low priority. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
2. Noted: The Court is willing to revise the order into a workable formula, with the court watching over its implementation. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
3. Noted: The Magistrate had not considered the actual cost or the time needed. The Court must ascertain how feasible the scheme is and how heavy the cost is. It must frame a scheme, fix time limits and oversee execution. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
4. Noted: The Court allowed the municipality and the respondents to produce schemes by expert engineers, since judges are laymen and cannot put on expert airs. Scheme A was estimated at Rs 1.016 crores. The State Government reduced the cost. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
5. Held: What matters is to eliminate the worst aspects of the insanitary conditions, and not to start a showy scheme beyond the municipality's means and leave it half done. The Court approves Scheme C, costing around Rs 6 lakhs. (Krishna Iyer, J.)

Supplementary directions and closing remarks

1. Held: The Municipal Council must act at once, within its statutory powers, to stop the Alcohol Plant's effluents flowing into the street. The State Government must also act to stop the pollution, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate must use Section 133. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
2. Held: "Industries cannot make profit at the expense of public health". The Court asks why the Magistrate did not pursue this aspect. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
3. Held: The Municipal Council must build public latrines for men and women separately, with water supply and scavenging service morning and evening. The Health Officer must report at the end of six months that the work is complete. The local people should be trained to use and keep the toilets clean. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
4. Held: The State Government must give special instructions to the Malaria Eradication Wing to stop mosquito breeding in Ward 12. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate must direct the officer concerned to file a report that the work has been done in reasonable time. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
5. Held: The Municipality must also fill up cesspools and pits of filth, and use its sanitary staff to keep the place clean. Spending on prophylactic sanitation is a gain on its hospital budget. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
6. Held: If the directions are not complied with, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate will prosecute the responsible officers. The Court will also consider punishing for contempt any wilful breach reported by the Magistrate. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
7. Held: The State Government will make loans or grants available to the Municipality. Article 47 makes improving public health a paramount principle of governance and a primary duty. The municipality should slim its budget on low priority and elitist items. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
8. Noted: The Court expects that all wards will be benefited without litigation. The judicial process is expensive and dilatory, and responsible bodies should be responsive to duty. It cites Cappelletti's description of the judicial system as slow and costly. (Krishna Iyer, J.)
9. Held: Where Directive Principles have found statutory expression, the court will not allow municipal government to become a statutory mockery. "the plea of poor finance will be poor alibi when people in misery cry for justice". (Krishna Iyer, J.)
10. Held: The judicial process has a new enforcement dimension, through the Criminal Procedure Code and through activated tort consciousness. Officers and elected representatives face the penalty of the law if they defy or deny what the Constitution and legislation direct. "The wages of violation is punishment, corporate and personal". (Krishna Iyer, J.)
11. Held: The petition is dismissed, subject to the modifications. (Krishna Iyer, J.)

Authorities

• Govind Singh v. Shanti Sarup ([1979] 2 SCC 267, 279): where public health and safety are involved, the safer course is to accept the Magistrate's view. Followed by the High Court and approved (Krishna Iyer, J.).
• Other sources: Prof. Sikes on the danger of the system crumbling under its own insensitivity; Prof. Kojima on the need to focus on the ordinary man; Cappelletti and Garth, Access to Justice; Prof. Adolf Homburger on the change in the hierarchy of values in civil procedure.

Provisions mentioned

• Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure (the old Code and the present Code): conditional order by a Magistrate to remove an unlawful obstruction or nuisance from a public place.
• Section 141, Code of Criminal Procedure (old Code): notice to carry out the work within the period.
• Section 188, Indian Penal Code: disobedience to an order promulgated by a public servant, punishable with imprisonment up to six months or a fine up to Rs 1,000, or both.
• Section 123(1)(b) and (c), M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961: duties of a Council to cleanse public streets and sewers, abate public nuisances and dispose of night-soil and rubbish.
• Sections 32 to 43, Town Improvement Trust Act: the Trust's power to make plans.
• Article 38 and Article 47, Constitution: Article 38 is cited as obligating access to justice; Article 47 makes improving public health a primary duty of the State.
• Part III, Constitution: human rights to be respected regardless of budgetary provision.
• Preamble, Constitution: mandates a shift from the individualism of locus standi to community-oriented public interest litigation.

Judgement

1. The petition is dismissed, subject to the following modifications of the Magistrate's order.
2. The Municipality must carry out Scheme C, costing around Rs 6 lakhs. It must complete the work within one year.
3. The work must begin within two months of the judgment. The Magistrate must inspect progress every three months, to be satisfied that the order is being implemented bona fide. Breaches are punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The Ratlam Municipal Council must take immediate action within its statutory powers to stop effluents from the Alcohol Plant flowing into the street. The State Government must also take action to stop the pollution. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate must use Section 133 to abate the nuisance.
5. The Municipal Council must, within six months, build enough public latrines for men and women separately. It must provide water supply and scavenging service morning and evening. The Health Officer must report at the end of six months that the work is complete.
6. The State Government must give special instructions to the Malaria Eradication Wing to stop mosquito breeding in Ward 12. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate must direct the officer concerned to file a report that the work has been done in reasonable time.
7. The municipality must build the drains, fill up cesspools and other pits of filth, and use its sanitary staff to keep the place free of filth.
8. If the directions are not complied with, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate must prosecute the responsible officers. The Court will consider punishing wilful breach as contempt.
9. The Court is sure that the State Government will make loans or grants available to the Municipality to fulfil its obligations.

Legal Principle / Ratio

Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the Magistrate a mandatory public duty to order removal of a public nuisance, and a municipality cannot plead lack of funds against its statutory duty under Section 123. Courts may frame a scheme, fix time limits and oversee execution. In the Court's words, "Wherever there is a public nuisance, the presence of s. 133 Cr.P.C. must be felt".

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

The Court cut the scheme to what the Municipality could afford. It approved Scheme C at about Rs 6 lakhs, in place of Scheme A at Rs 1.016 crores. It accepted that law is realistic, while refusing to treat health as a low priority.

Enforcement rests on prosecution of officers. The Court says the Magistrate will prosecute officers and that it will consider contempt. The judgment does not say what follows if the State does not give the expected loans or grants.

The Court noticed a gap in the Magistrate's order. It asked why the Magistrate did not pursue the Alcohol Plant discharge, and then directed action on that point in the supplementary directions.

Significance

• The Court held that Section 133 is a mandatory duty, and that financial inability is no defence to a statutory duty.
• It treated dignity and decency as non-negotiable facets of human rights and a first charge on local bodies.
• It approved affirmative action, with a scheme, time limits and supervision by the Magistrate.
• It read the Codes with a social justice orientation and with access to justice, as a public interest litigation case.

Exam-Important Points

• Facts in one line: residents of Ward 12, Ratlam asked for drains and latrines under Section 133, and the Municipality pleaded lack of funds. The Court dismissed the petition with modifications.
• Rule: Section 133 is categoric, although it reads as discretionary. It is a mandatory public duty when the jurisdictional facts are present.
• Rule: financial inability is no defence for a municipality against a mandatory duty under Section 123 of the Act.
• Rule: the Court may direct affirmative action on a time-bound basis and supervise it.
• Trap: the Court approved Scheme C, not the costlier Scheme A. The Magistrate's order was revised, and the petition was still dismissed.
• Trap: the Court noted that the Magistrate should also have stressed the Malaria Department's neglect and the Alcohol Plant's discharge.
• Directions: one year for Scheme C, work to begin within two months, inspection every three months, latrines within six months.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. Paragraph numbers follow the official Supreme Court judgment text; law reports may number the same paragraph differently.