Question

3. Keeping the Ratlam Municipality case in mind, read the sentences given below.
Put against the sentences which are correct and a X against the sentences which are incorrect. Correct and rewrite the incorrect sentences :

(1) Municipality took the case to the District Court as it was
dissatisfied with the decision given by the lower court.​

Answer 1

Answer:

• This case concerns the Ratlam municipality’s obligations to its people under Section 123 M. P. Municipalities Act of 1961. These obligations include the provision of sanitary facilities and the prevention of street contamination from a nearby alcohol plant. The residents of the Ratlam municipality, frustrated at the lack of sanitary facilities and the contamination in the streets, brought suit against the municipality under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code for public nuisance. The municipality argued that, 1) the residents chose to live where there are no facilities, and 2) the authorities lacked the funds necessary to construct what was required to comply.

• The Magistrate ordered the municipality to provide the proper facilities and construct drainpipes to abate the contamination. The order was appealed to the High Court, which affirmed the order below. The Supreme Court then considered whether a Court could affirmatively compel a statutory body to construct sanitary facilities and drainpipes at great cost. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order, holding that the Magistrate had the power to compel a statutory body to comply with the order in the name of public duty. The Supreme Court also held that Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code operates against statutory bodies and can be used to remove a public nuisance in a limited time period.