HC pulls up BMC for failing to provide additional toilets to Santacruz slum

A division bench of Justices Mahesh S Sonak and Kamal R Khata noted that it was ‘an extremely unfortunate’ case, where petitioners, who reside in the said slum area ‘are forced to approach’ the HC, seeking direction to BMC to provide reasonably sufficient toilet blocks for men and women, due to the acute inadequacy of toilets servicing the said area.

Advocate Chandani Chawla for petitioners said the slum consists of 400 families within nearly 1600 people and presently had only ten toilet blocks including six for men and four for women, and the same was ‘woefully insufficient.”

Last year, the BMC had informed the HC that additional toilets could not be constructed as the land belonged to Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), and the authority’s No Objection Certificate (NOC) was required.

However, on Friday, MHADA, through an affidavit, told the bench that it had already issued NOC in June, last year.

The bench said the BMC had ‘misled’ it and “had no remorse for making false and misleading statements before the court.” Instead it cited a ‘host of other problems’ including lack of access to MHADA property near toilet blocks. The MHADA submitted that it had no issues providing access.

The bench referred to a past judgement of the Supreme Court that held the right to life under Article 21 of constitution “cannot be restricted to mere animal existence or just physical survival”.

“Considering the expansive scope of Article 21 of the Constitution, it would be too late even to suggest that providing minimal sanitation and toilet facilities for slum dwellers is not a constitutional obligation of municipal authorities like the BMC.

Therefore, we are quite surprised that the attitude of the BMC in first, misleading this Court by apportioning the blame on MHADA, and second, placing innumerable hurdles to avoid compliance with its constitutional obligations.”

It added, “The entire approach, we say so, with regrets, is most uncooperative and insensitive.”

The bench also observed that “BMC being considered richest municipal corporation in the country did not have an option to plead lack of finance.”

The BMC official told the bench that the civic body would install temporary toilets within 45 days and constructing permanent additional blocks would take more than six months.

Terming this as ‘non cooperative attitude,’ the HC placed personal responsibility on the BMC Commissioner to ensure construction of temporary toilets.

It added that necessary survey of construction of a new ground plus one toilet block with sufficient toilets for men and women be expeditiously completed within three months.

The bench said it apprehended BMC’s attitude of creating several hurdles in complying with court orders in future.

Posting further hearing on November 14, seeking a progress report, it clarified that “usual reasons like calling for tenders, code of conduct, sanctions from the higher-ups, etc, should not come in the way of completing the construction within three months”.