Courts cannot interfere with MCD’s public-toilet location absent mala fides, arbitrariness, or legal infirmity.

The petitioner sought a writ directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) to demolish a public urinal/toilet situated alongside the wall of a park opposite his residence at E-365, E-Block, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi.

He alleged that the toilet had been constructed without public notice, invitation of objections, or consent of affected residents, and lacked proper sewage, drainage, water, electricity, and maintenance facilities.

An MCD response to an RTI application stated that no permission had been granted for construction of the toilet.

In its status report, however, the MCD stated that the existing urinal was located next to Sehgal Market-2 and had been constructed to meet public requirements; it had subsequently been upgraded into a public toilet due to the growth of the market and increased footfall.

The MCD further stated that the toilet would be hygienically maintained and that the petitioner’s residence was more than 30 feet away.

The petitioner complained of nuisance and stench and contended that another toilet existed within 500 metres.

No other local resident joined or independently challenged the construction.

Whether the MCD’s construction or upgradation of the public urinal/toilet could be interdicted on the grounds that it caused nuisance to the petitioner and that another toilet existed nearby.

Whether the location and provision of the public toilet suffered from mala fides, arbitrariness, or any other legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the alleged absence of public notice, residents’ consent, or prior permission justified a direction for demolition of the public utility.

The Court applied Sections 42(a) and 359 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which impose an obligatory function on the MCD to provide, maintain, and cleanse public latrines and urinals and require such facilities to be located at proper and convenient places, constructed without causing nuisance, and regularly maintained.

The determination of the need and suitable location of public toilets primarily lies with the Municipal Commissioner and the competent civic authority.

Relying on Muni Lal v. MCD, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 678, the Court held that a municipal authority cannot be prevented from discharging its statutory obligation in the absence of legal infirmity.

It further relied on Nizamuddin East Colony Association v. Union of India, MANU/DE/0629/2000, which establishes that public-interest action cannot be interdicted merely because it causes inconvenience to some individuals, and that judicial review will not substitute the Court’s assessment for that of the competent authority unless the decision is mala fide, arbitrary, or otherwise legally infirm.

The same approach had been followed in Shri Manish Gupta v. MCD and Ashok Sharma v. MCD.

The Court treated the public toilet as a civic amenity serving users of the adjoining market, park, and surrounding public area, and therefore as falling within the MCD’s statutory obligations under Sections 42 and 359 of the DMC Act.

The existence of another toilet within 500 metres did not permit the Court to substitute its own assessment for the MCD’s determination that the market’s growth and increased footfall justified the facility.

The petitioner’s alleged inconvenience and stench, though noted, did not establish mala fides, arbitrariness, or any other legal infirmity in the decision to maintain or upgrade the toilet.

The Court also noted that the petitioner’s residence was more than 30 feet away, that the urinal was an old public facility, and that no other resident had challenged it.

Accordingly, the Court declined to order demolition, while recognising the MCD’s continuing obligation to maintain hygiene and adequate sewage facilities.

The Court directed the MCD to take proper steps to ensure hygiene and adequate sewage facilities in the public toilet and the surrounding area.