One Nalin Kumar Jha has filed this writ petition describing himself as ‘Chairman (Development), Gram Sauchalaya Sansthan, a registered voluntary organisation under the Society (sic) Registration Act. He impleads, besides a few others, the State of Bihar (as respondent no. 1), the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Urban Development Department of State Government (respondent no. 2), all the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities in the State (with the exception of four, namely, Municipal Corporations of Patna, Darbhanga, Arrah and Begusarai) (Respondents 5 to 28) and Sulabh International, a Non-Government Social Service Organisation (respondent no. 29) and its founder Bindeshwar Pathak (as respondent no. 30). The writ petition seeks two reliefs which are quite unrelated to each other. He first makes a prayer for a direction to the Urban Development Departments to ask all the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities in the State to give contract of maintenance of public lavatories situate within their respective areas on the basis of public auction after making a public advertisement for the purpose. He secondly, makes a prayer to direct the State Government to institute an ‘independent enquiry into the misappropriation of crores of rupees’ making a number of allegations against Sulabh International and its founder on the one hand and the officials of the State Government, both past and present, on the other.
2. So far as the second prayer is concerned, it may be noted that earlier one Nilamber Mishra and another filed CWJC No. 7673/1998, by way of public interest litigation, seeking the same relief. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 29 and not denied by the petitioner, that the aforesaid Nilamber Mishra is the Vice President of Gramin Sauchalaya Sansthan. The present writ petition, consisting of 35 paragraphs, lifts verbatim more than 20 paragraphs from the writ petition in CWJC No. 7673/1998 and uses as annexures the same documents which were enclosed with the earlier writ petition.
3. It is further to be noted that another writ petition being CWJC No. 12502/1996, also by way of public interest litigation, was earlier filed by one Sharda Kishore Sinha claiming to represent an organisation under the name of Swawlambi Samajik Seva Samity. In that writ petition also the same relief was sought on more or less the same allegations and the same supporting materials enclosed as annexures. That writ petition (CWJC No. 12502/1996) was dismissed by order dated 19.12.1996 passed by a bench of this Court. The order was as follows:—
“We are not satisfied with the bonafide of the petitioner in filing this writ petition. This writ application is dismissed with cost-of Rs. 2,500/-. The cost shall be paid within a fortnight to the Patna High Court Council of Legal Aid and Advice. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Patna High Court Council of Legal Aid and Advice.”
4. It was perhaps in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner did not say any thing in support of the second relief but confined his submission only in respect of the first relief concerning the contract of maintenance of public lavatories popularly known as ‘Sulabh Shauchalaya’. As Mr. Mahto did not make any submission concerning the second relief it is not needed to say anything further in that regard.
5. Turning now to the first prayer, it is the case of the petitioner that the Municipal Corporations/Municipalities in this State (with the exception of the Municipal Corporations of Patna, Darbhanga, Arrah and Begusarai) were unduly favouring respondent no. 29 by their action in giving the contract of maintenance of public lavatories to it. It is stated that a public auction for giving the contract would bring substantial sums of money to the concerned Corporation/Municipality. The petitioner goes on to make an offer of Rs. 40 lacs, for the right to maintain public lavatories under the respondent Corporation/Municipalities and makes a prayer that a direction be made in his favour. The case of the petitioner appears to me to be plainly based on the notion that maintenance of public lavatories is analogous with the collection of tools for a bridge or a road. In fact the main thrust of Mr. Mahto's argument was that the State, in the distribution of its largesses cannot be allowed to take a discriminatory stance.
6. To my mind the argument is quite misconceived and it completely over looks the circumstances in which the Sulabh Sauchalayas came into existence in the first place. The argument also fails to see that certain basic technological knowledge is necessary for the maintenance of the Shauchalayas in an efficiently working State.
7. It is common knowledge that till the late 1960s and early 1970s service latrines were a common feature in many houses even in the urban centres of this State and scavengers carrying nightsoil on their heads was a familiar sight in the lanes and streets of the State Capital. The practice was so old established that to most it was an unimutable fact of life. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that at that time Sulabh Sauchalya (later known as Sulabh International, respondent no. 29) was among the first to challenge this practice and to call it the sign of degradation of man. Sulabh Sauchalaya not only advocated for abolishing the practice of scavengers carrying night-soil on their heads but also suggested the means to do so. It took up the scheme for conversion of service latrines into Water Seal Pot Hole Latrines (Sulabh Sauchalayas). The State Government on the basis of repeated decisions taken on different dates entrusted the job of conversion of service latrines into Water Seal Pot Hole Latrines and the construction of public lavatories all over the State to respondent no. 29 Sulabh Sauchalaya. The organisation constructed public lavatories all over the State and change over was so rapid, noticeable and impressive that public lavatories all over the State got the popular name after the name of the organisation—Sulabh Shauchalayas. In this State public lavatories are still commonly known as Sulabh Shauchalayas. As part of the Government decision Sulabh Sauchalaya was also to be given the job of maintenance of the lavatories constructed by it for a period of 30 years. It was in this background that the public lavatories of Sulabh Sauchalayas were constructed in this State and it was only after they came into existence that the petitioner has come forward to stake his claim for the contract of their maintenance.
8. It also cannot be lost sight of that a public lavatory does not only consist of building or a structure but it also has a running system. Its maintenance, therefore, does not mean simply collecting tolls on charges from its users but requires sufficient skill to efficiently maintain the running system. The system of public lavatories may be irreparably damaged in the hands of some one without sufficient skill and know-how to manage the system. The State Government therefore, may be held to be fully justified in giving the job to agencies duly recognised by it.
9. In this regard, it is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that by letter no. 4486, dated 31.8.1984 applications were invited from as many as 27 voluntary organisations which claimed to have experience in the field of conversion of service latrines and construction of public toilet so that they may also be granted recognition by the Government. The petitioner was one of the applicants and its claim was considered by the Government and finally rejected by letter no. 530, dated 6.2.1986 (Annexures ‘H’ and ‘I’ to the counter affidavit).
10. It is further stated that in the year, 1990 notices were issued in the newspaper inviting applications from voluntary organisations engaged in the work of conversion of service latrines and construction of public toilets. The response of the advertisement 23 organisations submitted their applications. After considering each applicant, five voluntary organisations were selected by the Government vide letter no. 1764, dated 7.7.1993 for the job of conversion of service latrines and construction of public toilets. It is significant to note that at that stage the petitioner did not even make an application before the Government.
11. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the action of the Government in granting recognition to five voluntary organisations under letter, dated 7.7.1993 was challenged before this court in CWJC No. 13413/1992 filed at the instance of one Shri Ram Singh, representing some other voluntary organisation. That writ petition was dismissed by a bench of this court by order, dated 3.11.1998 holding that the State Government had made the selection in a reasonable manner and the selection made by it did not warrant any interference by this court.
12. The case of the petitioner having been considered and rejected by the State Government in the year 1986 and the petitioner not having applied in response to the advertisement issued in the year, 1990, it is obvious that his organisation is not recognised by the State Government for the purpose of construction and maintenance of public toilets. No direction can, therefore, be issued for granting the petitioner; the contract of maintenance of public toilets.
13. For the reasons discussed above, I find that this writ petition is completely devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
Comments