Civil Appeal No 1576 of 1987 From the Judgment and order dated 1311987 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA No 3521 of 1986 HN Salve R K Garg and ND Garg for the Appellants
TU Mehta and GK Bansal for the Respondents
The following Judgments of the Court were delivered RAY J
The defendant respondent No 1 Ram Prakash as Karta of joint Hindu family executed on February 7 1978 an agreement to sell the suit property bearing MCK No 2389 in Mohalla Qanungaon at Kaithal for a consideration of Rs21400 and he received a sum of Rs5000 as earnest money
As the respondent No 1 refused to execute the sale deed the defendant No 2 Jai Bhagwan instituted a suit No 570 of 1978 in the court of Sub Judge 1st Class Kaithal for specific performance of the agreement to sell and in the alternative for a decree for recovery of Rs 10000
In the said suit the appellant Nos 1 and 2 and the respondent No 11 who are the sons of defendant respondent No 1 made an application for being impleaded
This application however was dismissed
Thereafter the 3 sons of defendant No 1 as plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No 31 of 1982 in the Court of Sub Judge IInd Class Kaithal for permanent injunction stating inter alia that the said property was joint Hindu Family coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendant No 1 that there was no legal necessity for sale of the property nor it was an act of a good management to sell the same to the defendant No 2 without the consent of the plaintiffs and without any legal necessity
It was therefore prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No 1 restraining him from selling or alienating the property to the defendant No 2 or to any other person and also restraining defendant No 2 from proceeding with the suit for specific performance pending in the civil court
The defendant No 2 Jai Bhagwan since deceased filed a written statement stating inter alia that the defendant No 1 disclosed that the suit property was owned by him and that he was in need of money for meeting the expenses of the family including the education expenses cf the children and also for the marriage of his daughters
It has also been pleaded that the house in question fetched a very low income from rent 630 and as such the defendant No 1 who has been residing in Delhi did not think it profitable to keep the house
It has also been stated that the suit was not maintainable in law and the injunction as prayed for could not be granted
The Trial Court after hearing the parties and considering the evidences on record held that the house property in question was the ancestral property of the Joint Hindu Mitakshara Family and the defendant No 1 who is the father of the plaintiffs was not competent to sell the same except for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate Since the plaintiffs  application for impleading them as party in the suit for specific performance of contract of sale was dismissed the filing of the present suit was the only remedy available to the plaintiffs
The plaintiffs being coparceners having interest in the property the suit in the present form is maintainable
The Trial Court further held that It is well settled law that Karta of the joint Hindu family cannot alienate the coparcenary property without legal necessity and coparcener has right to restrain the Karta from alienating the coparcenary property if the sale is with out legal necessity and is not for the benefit of the estate
This view of mine is supported by case titled Shiv Kumar vs Mool Chand  reported in CLJ 1971 page 1027 thus the proposed sale is without any legal necessity and is not for the benefit of the estate therefore the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with no orders as to costs Against this judgment and decree the defendants the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No 2 preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No 19913 of 1984
The lower appellate court following the decision in Jujhar Singh vs Giani Talok Singh held that a coparcener has no right to maintain a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Manager or Karta from alienating the coparcenary property and the coparcener has the right only to challenge the alienation of coparcenary property and recover back the property after alienation has come into being
The Court of appeal below further held That Ram Prakash father of the plaintiffs and Karta of the joint coparcenary property cannot be restrained by way of injunction from alienating the coparcenary property to defendant No 2
In consequence the appeal is accepted 631 and the judgment and decree of the trial court under attack A are set aside  Against this judgment and decree the instant appeal on special leave has been preferred by the appellants ie the sons of the defendant respondent No 1 the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family
In this appeal we are called upon to decide the only question whether a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Karta of the joint Hindu family from alienating the house property belonging to the joint Hindu family in pursuance of the agreement to sell executed already in favour of the predecessor of the appellants Jai Bhagwan since deceased is maintainable
It is well settled that in a Joint Hindu Mitakshara Family a son acquires by birth an interest equal to that of the father in ancestral property
The father by reason of his paternal relation and his position as the head of the family is its Manager and he is entitled to alienate joint family property so as to bind the interests of both adult and minor coparceners in the property provided that the alienation is made for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate or for meeting an antecedent debt
The power of the Manager of a joint Hindu family to alienate a joint Hindu family property is analogous to that of a Manager for an infant heir as observed by the Judicial Committee in Hunooman persaud Panday vs Mussumat Babooee Munraj Koonweree Moore s on Indian Appeal  1856 Vol
VI 393 The power of a Manager for an infant heir to charge ancestral estate by loan or mortgage is by the Hindu Law a limited and qualified power which can only be exercised rightly by the Manager in a case of need or for the benefit of the estate
But where the charge is one that a prudent owner would make in order to benefit the estate a bona fide lender is not affected by the precedent mismanagement of the estate
The actual pressure on the estate the danger to be averted or the benefit to be conferred in the particular instance or the criteria to be regarded
If that danger arises from any misconduct to which the lender has been a party he cannot take advantage of his own wrong to support a charge in his favour against the heir grounded on a necessity which his own wrong has helped to cause
A lender however in such circumstances is bound to inquire into the necessities of the loan and to satisfy himself as well as he can with reference to the parties with 632 whom he is dealing that the Manager is acting in the A particular instance for the benefit of the estate
If he does inquire and acts honestly the real existence of an alleged and reasonably credited necessity is not a condition precedent to the validity of his charge which renders him bound to see to the application of the money
 At the outset it is to be noticed that in a suit for permanent injunction under section 38 of the by a coparcener against the father or Manager of the Joint Hindu family property an injunction cannot be granted as the coparcener has got equally efficacious remedy to get the sale set aside and recover possession of the property
Sub Section h of Section 38 of bars the grant of such an injunction in the suit
Secondly the plaintiff respondents brought this suit for permanent injunction restraining their father the defendant No 1 from selling or alienating the property to the defendant No 2 or any other person and also restraining the defendant No 2 from proceeding with the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell pending in the civil court
Thus the relief sought for is to restrain by permanent injunction the Karta of the Joint Hindu Mitakshara Family ie defendant No 1 from selling or alienating the house property in question
The defendant No 1 as Karta of the joint Hindu family has undoubtedly the power to alienate the joint family property for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate as well as for meeting antecedent debts
The grant of such a relief will have the effect of preventing the father permanently from selling or transferring the suit property belonging to the joint Hindu Undivided Family even if there is a genuine legal necessity for such transfer
If such a suit for injunction is held maintainable the effect wi be that whenever the father as Karta of the Joint Hindu coparcener property will propose to sell such property owing to a bona fide legal necessity any coparcener may come up with such a suit for permanent injunction and the father will not be able to sell the property for legal necessity until and unless that suit is decided
The judgment in Shiv Kumar Mool Chand Arora vs Mool Chand Jaswant Singh AIR 1972 Pub  Har 147 wherein it was held that a suit for permanent injunction against the father to restrain him from alienating the joint Hindu family property was maintainable has been off set by the Division Bench in Jujhar Singh vs Ciani Talok Singh supra wherein it has been held that a suit for permanent injunction by a coparcener against the father for restraining him from alienating the house property belonging to the joint Hindu family for legal neces 633 sity was not maintainable because the coparcener had got the remedy of challenging the sale and getting it set aside in a suit subsequent to the completion of the sale
Following this decision the High Court allowed the appeal holding that the suit was not maintainable reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
We do not find any infirmity in the findings arrived at by the High Court
It has however been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the High Court should have held that in appropriate cases where there are acts of waste a suit for permanent injunction may be brought against the Karta of the joint Hindu famiiy to restrain him from alienating the property of the joint Hindu family
This question is not required to be considered as we have already held that the instant suit for injunction as framed is not maintainable
We of course make it clear that in case of waste or ouster an injunction may be granted against the Manager of the joint Hindu family at the instance of the coparcener
But nonetheless a blanket injunction restraining permanently from alienating the property of the joint Hindu family even in the case of legal necessity cannot be granted
It further appears that the defendant No 1 Ram Parkash entered into the agreement of sale stating that he is the owner of the suit property
The plaintiff appellants claim the suit property as ancestral property and they as coparceners of joint Hindu Mitakshara family have equal shares with their father in the suit property
The question whether the suit property is the self acquired property of the father or it is the ancestral property has to be decided before granting any relief
The suit being one for permanent injunction this question cannot be gone into and decided
It is also pertinent to note in this connection that the case of specific performance of agreement of sale bearing suit No 570 of 1978 had already been decreed on 11th May 1981 by the Sub Judge Ist Class Kaithal
For the reasons aforesaid we affirm the judgment and decree made by the High Court and dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs
JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
I agree that this appeal should be dismissed but I add a few words of my own The question raised in the appeal is whether interference of the Court could be sought by a coparcener to interdict the Karta of Hindu undivided family from alienating coparcenary property
The question is of considerable importance and there seems to be but little authority in decided cases
634 The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass
In February 1978 Ram Prakash entered into agreement for sale of certain house property in favour of Jai Bhagwan
The property has been described in the agreement as self acquired property of Ram Prakash
It was agreed to be sold for Rs21400
Jai Bhagwan paid Rs5000 as earnest money on the date of agreement
He promised to pay the balance on the date of execution of the sale deed
Ram Prakash however did not keep up his promise
He did not execute the sale deed though called upon to do so Jai Bhagwan instituted a suit for specific performance of the agreement
In that suit Rakesh Kumar and his brothers who are the sons of Ram Prakash wanted to be impleaded as parties to the suit
They want to resist the suit for specific performance
But the Court did not permit them
The Court said that they were unnecessary parties to the suit
Being unsuccessful in that attempt they instituted a suit for permanent injunction against their father
They wanted the Court to restrain their father from alienating the house property to Jai Bhagwan or to any body else
Their case was that the said house was their coparcenary property and the proposed sale was neither for legal necessity nor for benefit of the joint family estate
The suit for injunction was practically tried as a suit for declaration
A lot of evidence was adduced on various issues including the nature of the suit property
The trial court ultimately decreed the suit with the following findings The suit property was coparcenary pro perty of the joint family consisting of Ram Prakash and his sons
Jai Bhagwan has failed to prove that the proposed sale was for legal necessity of the joint family
He has also failed to prove that the intended sale was for benefit of the estate
Ram Prakash being the manager of the family cannot alienate coparcenary property in the absence of those two requirements
The sons could restrain their father from alienating the coparcenary property since the proposed sale was without justification Jai Bhagwan died during the pendency of the suit
His wife and children challenged the decree of the trial court in an appeal before the Additional District Judge Kurukshetra
By then the Punjab  Haryana High Court had declared in Jujhar Singh vs Giani Talok Singh 1968 PL J 346 that a suit for injunction to restrain Karta from alienating coparcenary property is not maintainable
The learned District Judge following the said decision reversed the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit
The plaintiff preferred second appeal which was summarily dismissed by the High Court
635 The plaintiffs by special leave have appealed to this Court
The arguments for the appellants appear to be attractive and are as follows There is no presumption under law that the alienation of joint family property made by Karta is valid
The Karta has no arbitrary power to alienate joint family property
He could do so only for legal necessity or for family benefit
When both the requirements are wanting in the case the coparceners need not vainly wait till the transaction is completed to their detriment
They are entitled to a share in the suit property
They are interested in preserving the property for the family
They could therefore legitimately move the court for an action against the Karta in the nature of a quia timet
As a preliminary to the consideration of the question urged it will be necessary to examine the structure of joint Hindu family its incidents and the power of Karta or manager thereof
The status of the undivided Hindu family or the coparcenary is apparently too familiar to every one to require discussion
I may however refer in laconie details what is just necessary for determining the question urged in this appeal
JOlNT HINDU FAMILY Those who are of individualistic attitude and separate ownership may find it hard to understand the significance of a Hindu joint family and joint property
But it is there from the ancient time perhaps as a social necessity
A Hindu joint family consists of male members descended lineally from a common male ancestor together with their mothers wives or widows and unmarried daughters
They are bound together by the fundamental principle of sapindaship or family relationship which is the essential feature of the institution
The cord that knits the members of the family is not property but the relationship of one another
The coparcenary consists of only those persons who have taken by birth an interest in the property of the holder and who can enforce a partition whenever they like
It is a narrower body than joint family
It commences with a common ancestor and includes a holder of joint property and only those males in his male line who are not removed from him by more than three degrees
The reason why coparcenership is so limited is to be found in the tenet of the Hindu religion that only male descendants upto three degrees can offer spiritual ministration to 636 an ancestor only males can be coparceners
See Hindu Law by A NR Raghavachariar 8th Ed
p 202
In an early case of the Madras High Court in Sudarshan Maistri vs Narasimhulu Maistri and anr
 ILR 25 MAD 149 Bhashyam Ayyanger J made the following pregnant observations about the R nature of the institution and its incidents at p 154 The Mitakshara doctrine of joint family property is founded upon the existence of an undivided family as a corporate body Gan Savant Bal Savant vs Narayan Dhond Savant ILR at p 471 and Mayne s Hindu Law and Usage 6th edition paragraph 270 and the possession of property by such corporate body
The first requisite therefore is the family unit and the possession by it of property is the second requisite
For the present purpose female members of the family may be left out of consideration and the conception of a Hindu family is a common male ancestor with his lineal descendants in the male line and so long as that family is in its normal condition viz the undivided state it forms a corporate body Such corporate body with its heritage is purely a creature of law and cannot be created by act of parties save in so far that by adoption a stranger may be affiliated as a member of that corporate family
Adverting to the nature of the property owned by such a family learned Judge proceeded to state at p 155 As regards the property of such family the unobstructed heritage  devolving on such family with its accretions is owned by the family as a corporate body and one or more branches of that family each forming a corporate body within a larger corporate body may possess separate unobstructed heritage  which with its accretions may be exclusively owned by such branch as a corporate body
 This statement of law has been approved by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dayal vs Mst
Reoti Devi   p 477 Managing Member and His Powers In a Hindu family the karta or manager occupies a unique posi 637 tion It is not as if anybody could become manager of a joint Hindu family As a general rule the father of a family if alive and in his absence the senior member of the family is alone entitled to manage the joint family property
 The manager occupies a position superior to other members
He has greater rights and duties
He must look after the family interests
He is entitled to possession of the entire joint estate He is also entitled to manage the family properties
In other words the actual possession and management of the joint family property must vest in him
He may consult the members of the family and if necessary take their consent to his action but he is not answerable to every one of them
The legal position of karta or manager has been succinctly summarised in the Mayne s Hindu Law 12th Ed
para 318 thus 318
Manager s Legal position The position of a karta or manager is sui generis the relation between him and the other members of the family is not that of principal and agent or of partners
It is more like that of a trustee and cestui que trust
But the fiduciary relationship does not involve all the duties which are imposed upon trustees
 The managing member or karta has not only the power to manage but also power to alienate joint family property
The alienation may be either for family necessity or for the benefit of the estate
Such alienation would bind the interests of all the undivided members of the family whether they are adults or minors
The oft quoted decision in this aspect is that of the Privy Council in Hanuman Parshad vs Mt Babooee  There it was observed at p 423  1 The power of the manager for an infant heir to charge an estate not his own is under the Hindu law a limited and qualified power
It can only be exercised rightly in case of need or for the benefit of the estate
 This case was that of a mother managing as guardian for an infant heir
A father who happens to be the manager of an undivided Hindu family certainly has greater powers to which I will refer a little later
Any other manager however is not having anything less than those stated in the said case
Therefore it has been repeatedly held that the principles laid down in that case apply equally to a father or other coparcener who manages the joint family estate
Remedies against alienations Although the power of disposition of joint family property has been conceded to the manager of joint Hindu family for the reasons aforesaid the law raises no presumption as to the validity of his trans 638 actions
His acts could be questioned in the Courts of law
The other members of the family have a right to have the transaction declared void if not justified
When an alienation is challenged as being unjustified or illegal it would be for the alienee to prove that there was Iegal necessity in fact or that he made proper and bonafide enquiry as to the existence of such necessity
It would be for the alienee to prove that he did all that was reasonable to satisfy himself as to the existence of such necessity
If the alienation is found to be unjustified then it would be declared void
Such alienations would be void except to the extent of manager s share in Madras Bombay and Central Provinces
The purchaser could get only the manager s share
But in other provinces the purchaser would not get even that much
The entire alienation would be void
Mayne s Hindu Law 11th ed
para 396
In the light of these principles I may now examine the correctness of the contentions urged in this appeal
The submissions of Mr HN Salve as I understand
proceeded firstly on the premise that a coparcener has as much interest as that of karta in the coparcenary property
Second the right of copercener in respect of his share in the ancestral property would remain unimpaired if the alienation is not for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate
When these two rights are preserved to a coparcener why should he not prevent the Karta from dissipating the ancestral property by moving the Court Why should he vainly wait till the purchaser gets title to the property This appears to be the line of reasoning adopted by the learned counsel
I do not think that these submissions are sound
It is true that a coparcener takes by birth an interest in the ancestral property but he is not entitled to separate possession of the coparcenary estate
His rights are not independent of the control of the karta
It would be for the karta to consider the actual pressure on the joint family estate
It would be for him to foresee the danger to be averted
And it would be for him to examine as to how best the joint family estate could be beneficially put into use to subserve the interests of the family
A coparcener cannot interfere in these acts of management
Apart from that a father karta in addition to the aforesaid powers of alienation has also the special power to sell or mortgage ancestral property to discharge his antecedent debt which is not tainted with immorality
If there is no such need or benefit the purchaser takes risk and the right and interest of coparcener will remain unimpaired in the alienated property
No doubt the law confers a right on the coparcener to challenge the alienation made by karta but that right is not inclusive 639 Of the right to obstruct alienation
Nor the right to obstruct alienation could be considered as incidental to the right to challenge the alienation
These are two distinct rights
One is the right to claim a share in the joint family estate free from unnecessary and unwanted encumbrance
The other is a right to interfere with the act of management of the joint family affairs
The coparcener cannot claim the latter right and indeed he is not entitled for it
Therefore he cannot move the court to grant relief by injunction restraining the karta from alienating the coparcenary property
There is one more difficulty for the sustainability of the suit for injunction with which we are concerned
Temporary injunction can be granted under sub section l of Section 37 of the 
It is regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908
A decree for perpetual injunction is made under sub section 2 of Section 37
Such an injunction can be granted upon the merits of the suit
The injunction would be to restrain the defendant perpetually from the commission of an act which would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff Section 38 of the governs the grant of perpetual injunction and sub section 3 thereof reads When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff s right to or enjoyment of property the Court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases namely a Where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff b Where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused or likely to be caused by the invasion c Where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief d Where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings
The provisions of Section 38 have to be read alongwith section 41
Section 41 provides that an injunction cannot be granted in the cases falling under clauses a to j
Clause h thereunder provides that an injunction cannot be granted when a party could obtain an 640 efficacious relief by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust
The coparcener has adequate remedy to impeach the alienation made by the karta
He cannot therefore move the Court for an injunction restraining the karta from alienating the coparcenary property
lt seems to me that the decision of the Punjab  Haryana High Court in Jujhar Singh vs Giani Talok Singh has correctly laid down the law
There it was observed at p 348 If it is held that such a suit would be competent the result would be that each time the manager or the karta wants to sell property the coparcener would file a suit which may take number of years for its disposal
The legal necessity or the purpose of the proposed sale which may be of pressing and urgent nature would in most cases be frustrated by the time the suit is disposed of
Legally speaking unless the alienation in fact is completed there would be no cause of action for any coparcener to maintain a suit because the right is only to challenge the alienation made and there is no right recognised in law to maintain a suit to prevent the proposed sale
The principle that an injunction can be granted for preventing waste by a manager or karta obviously would not be applicable to such a suit because the proposed alienation for an alleged need or the benefit of the estate cannot be said to be an act of waste by any stretch of reasoning
We are therefore of the considered view that a coparcener has no right to maintain a suit for permanent injunction restraining the manager or the karta from alienating the coparcenary property and his right is only to challenge the same and to recover the property after it has come into being From the above discussion of the principles of Hindu Law and in the light of the provisions of the  I think therefore there ought to be no hesitation on my part to dismiss this appeal and I dismiss the same with cost SL Appeal dismissed


Summary:
 This Court in MC Mehta vs Union of India  ors had issued certain directions with regard to the industries in which the business of tanning was being carried on near Kanpur on the banks of the River Ganga
On that occasion the Court had directed that the case in respect of the municipal bodies and the industries which were responsible for the pollution of the water in the river Ganga would be taken up next and accordingly the Court took up for consideration this case against the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika since it was found that Kanpur was one of the biggest cities on the banks of the river Ganga
Under the laws governing the local bodies the nagar Mahapalikas and Municipal Boards were primarily responsible for the maintenance of cleanliness in the areas under their jurisdiction and the protection of their environments
Under the water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act 1974 the Water Act  provisions had been made for the establishment of Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution etc
The Environment Protection Act 1986 contained provisions relating to the control prevention and abatement of pollution of water
Although Parliament and the State Legislature had thus enacted laws imposing duties on the Central and State Boards and the municipalities for the prevention and control of pollution of water no adequate action had been taken pursuant to many of their provisions
27450 million litres a day of sewage water was being discharged into the river Ganga from the city of Kanpur which was the highest in the State of UP Sewer cleaning had never been done systematically in Kanpur and there was mal functioning and choking of the city sewerage
Pollution of water in the river Ganga was of the highest degree at Kanpur and a large extent of misery sickness and death due to infectious diseases arose out of water supplies
The petitioner filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation against the public nuisance 531 caused by the serious pollution of the river Ganga for protecting the lives of the people using the Ganga water
Disposing of the petition the Court  HELD The petitioner before the Court was no doubt not a riparian owner
He was a person interested in protecting the lives of the people who made use of the water flowing in the river Ganga and his right to maintain the petition could not be disputed
The nuisance caused by the pollution was a public nuisance wide spread in range and indiscriminate in its effect and it would not be reasonable to expect any particular person to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the community at large
The petition was entertained as a Public Interest Litigation
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Court was of the view that the petitioner was entitled to move the Court in order to enforce the statutory provisions which imposed duties on the municipal authorities and the Boards under the water Act on account of failure of which to obey the statutory duties for several years the water in the River Ganga at Kanpur had become so much polluted that it could no longer be used by the people for drinking or bathing
The Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur had to bear the major responsibility for the pollution of the river near the Kanpur city
The construction of certain works undertaken under the Ganga Action Plan at Kanpur to improve the sewerage system and prevent pollution of the water in the river Ganga were going on at a snail s pace
The Court expected the authorities concerned would complete those works within the target dates mentioned in their counter affidavits
The Court noticed that the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika had not yet submitted its proposals for sewage treatment works to the State Board constituted under Water Act and directed that the mahapalika should submit its proposals to the State Board within six months from the date of this judgment
551H 552A F The Court further directed i The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should take action under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam 1959 or the relevant bye laws made thereunder to prevent pollution of the water in the river Ganga by waste accumulated at the large number of dairies in Kanpur having about 80000 cattle
The dairies might either be shifted outside the city so that the waste at the dairies did not ultimately reach the river Ganga or in the alternative the Mahapalika might arrange for the removal of the waste by motor vehicles in which 532 event the owners of the diaries could not claim any compensation
The Mahapalika should immediately take action to prevent collection of manure at private manure pits inside the city 552G H 553A ii The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should take immediate steps to increase the size of the sewers in the labour colonies so 13 that sewage might be carried smoothly through the sewerage system and wherever sewerage line was not yet constructed steps should be taken to lay it 553B iii Immediate action should also be taken by the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to construct sufficient number of public latrines and urinals to prevent defecation by people on the open land
The proposal to levy any charge for use of such latrines and urinals shall be dropped as that would be a reason for poor people not to use the public latrines and urinals
The cost of maintenance of cleanliness of those latrines and urinals had to be borne by the Mahapalika
553C The Court was of the view that since the problem of pollution of the water in the river Ganga had become very acute the High Court should not ordinarily grant stay of criminal proceedings in cases where the Board constituted under the Water Act initiated any proceedings to prosecute industrialists or other persons who polluted the water in the Ganga as the stay orders on petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 frustrated the attempt of the Board to enforce the provisions of the Water Act and further even if such an order of stay was made in any extraordinary case the High Court should dispose of the case within a short period say about two months from the date of the institution of the case and further should take up for hearing all the cases where such orders had been issued under section P 482 Cr
PC staying prosecutions under the Water Act
553E G The Court further directed that the practice of throwing corpses and semi burnt corpses into the river Ganga should be immediately brought to an end
Steps should be taken by the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika and the police authorities to ensure that the dead bodies or G half burnt bodies were not thrown into the river Ganga
553H 554A In future j application for licences to establish new industries should be refused unless adequate provision had been made for the treatment of trade effluents flowing out of the factories and immediate action should be taken against the existing industries found responsible for the pollution of water
554B 533 Having regard to the grave consequences of the Pollution of water and air and need for protecting and improving the natural environment considered to be one of the fundamental duties under the Constitution it was the duty of the Central Government to direct all the educational institutions throughout India to teach at least for one hour in a week lessons on the protection and improvement of the natural environment including forests lakes rivers and wild life in the first ten classes
The Central Government should get the text books written for the said purpose and distributed to the educational institutions free of cost
Training of teachers who teach this subject by the introduction of short term courses for such training shall also be considered
This should be done throughout India
554C E The above directions of the Court would apply mutatis mutandis to all the other Mahapalikas and Municipalities having jurisdiction over the areas through which the river Ganga flows555C OBSERVATION The children should be taught about the need for maintaining cleanliness of the houses both inside and outside and of the streets in which they live
Clean surroundings lead to healthy body and healthy mind
554E In order to rouse amongst the people the consciousness of cleanliness of environments the Government of India and the Governments of the States and the Union Territories may consider the desirability of organising keep the city clean  week Nagar Nirmalikarana Saptaha and keep the village clean  week Gram Nirmalikarana Saptaha in every city town and village throughout India at least once a year
During that week the entire city town or village should be kept as far as possible clean tidy and free from pollution of land water and air
The organisation of the week should be entrusted to the Nagar Mahapalikas Town Municipalities Municipal Corporation Village Panchayats or such other authorities having jurisdiction over the area in question
If the authorities decide to organise such a week it may not be celebrated in the same week throughout India but may be staggered depending upon the convenience of the particular city town or village
During that week all the citizens including the members of the executive Parliament State Legislatures and Judiciary may be requested to co operate with the local authorities and take part in the celebrations by rendering free personal service
This would surely create a national awareness of the problems faced by the people by the appalling allround deterioration of the environment which is witnessed today
554FM 555A B 534 MC Mehta vs Union of India  others 1987 4 SCC 463 and Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association vs British Celanese Limited 1953 Chancery 149