JUDGMENT Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Section 210(1) of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vests in the Corporation all public streets in the city not reserved under the control of the Central or the State Government with the pavements, stones and other materials thereof, and all works, materials, implements and other things provided for such streets, all sewers, drains, drainage works; tunnels and culverts, whether made at the cost of the municipal fund or otherwise in, along-side or under, any street, whether public or private, and all works, materials, implements and other things appertaining thereto. 2. Section 211 of the Act provides for the maintenance and repair of streets and roads as under: Maintenance and repair of streets,-The Corporation shall cause the public streets to be maintained and repaired and may make all improvements thereto which are necessary or expedient for the public safety or convenience. Section 232(1) which is also relevant for the purpose of this case requires the Commissioner so far as practicable during the construction or repair of the street, drain or premises vested in the Corporation to cause the same to be fenced and guarded, and to cause such bars, chains or posts to be fixed across or in any street, in which any such work is under execution as are necessary to prevent the passage of vehicles or animals and avert danger. Sub-section (3) also requires that the Commissioner shall with all reasonable speed, cause the work to be completed, the ground to be filled in, the drain, street or premises to be repaired and the rubbish occasioned thereby to be removed. 3. Petitioner invokes these provisions in aid of his prayers in the original petition. 4. The Petitioner is a Mechanical Engineer, and a citizen of Ernakulam in Cochin City. Banerji Road in Ernakulam is one of those streets which has vested in the Corporation under Section 210(1) of the Act and which is being used by the Corporation. Petitioner was walking along the foot path in Banerji Road opposite to Cherrys Petrol Bunk at about 10 a.m. on 26th December 1983. The drain along the foot path was not properly covered with the result the Petitioner's left leg got trapped in the open drain. Petitioner was walking along the foot path in Banerji Road opposite to Cherrys Petrol Bunk at about 10 a.m. on 26th December 1983. The drain along the foot path was not properly covered with the result the Petitioner's left leg got trapped in the open drain. The drain had not been fenced or guarded; nor were there any posts or signs of caution, as required under Section 232 of the Act. Petitioner's left leg was fractured, he became unconscious and he was taken to hospital where he was under treatment for the fracture. Ext. P-1 is the medical certificate issued by Sree Sudheedra Medical Mission Hospital, testifying to his injury. Petitioner issued notice to the first Respondent Corporation through his lawyer claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 70,000. This notice is, dated 27th March, 1984 and a copy thereof is Ext. P-2. Though the notice was received by the first Respondent, they did not even bother to send any reply thereto. 5. Petitioner's prayer in the original petition is two fold, one to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents (which includes the State) to immediately cover up all non-covered drains on the side of the streets and the roads in Cochin City and secondly to direct the first Respondent Corporation of Cochin to pay him compensation as claimed in Ext. P-2 notice. 6. The first Respondent does not deny that the Banerji Road where the accident occurred rests in the Corporation. On the other hand it is admitted that all the public-streets within the limits of the Corporation of Cochin are vested in it. It is stated that the duty to maintain and repair the streets within the limits of the Corporation is cast on it only in respect of those streets which are under its control. However, there is no case that the duty of maintaining and repairing the Banerji Road is not in the first Respondent. 7. Regarding the drain in question it is admitted that it was left uncovered. But it was so left uncovered to enable rain water to flow into the drain and thus to avoid the area being flooded. The Corporation had installed a sign board "caution" by the side of the road to alert pedestrians regarding the open drain, but the board had been taken and carried away by anti social elements. 8. But it was so left uncovered to enable rain water to flow into the drain and thus to avoid the area being flooded. The Corporation had installed a sign board "caution" by the side of the road to alert pedestrians regarding the open drain, but the board had been taken and carried away by anti social elements. 8. Having stated all this, the Corporation now throws the blame on the Petitioner for having fallen into the trap at 10 a.m. during broad day light. While they do not admit the correctness of the allegations regarding the fracture to the Petitioner's leg, it is stated that the Corporation was not negligent in keeping the drain open. Regarding the absence of any reply to the lawyer's notice it is explained as "due to an omission" on the part of the Corporation. 9. Section 211 of the Act obliges the Corporation to maintain and repair the public streets and make, all improvements thereto which are necessary or expedient for public safety or convenience. The necessary intendment and implication of Section 211 is that public streets should be safe and convenient for uesr by the public and that they should be kept, maintained and repaired in such a way that the safety or convenience of the public is not affected. Otherwise the very purpose of vesting the streets in the Corporation and casting them with the obligation of maintaining and repairing the same will be defeated. It is statutory duty to keep the streets, which must include the pavement and appurtenances, in proper condition so that the public may safely and conveniently make use of the same. It needs no reiteration that the streets should not constitute booby traos for the public to get entrapped and injured, in the course of their user of the same which they are entitled to as of right. The public is entitled to look upon the Corporation to see that the roads and the pavements do not become Zones of risk where the public may get endangered in the course of their normal user of the same. 10. The duties of public bodies in relation to their statutory functions were highlighted in the case of Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan MANU/SC/0171/1980 : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1622. 10. The duties of public bodies in relation to their statutory functions were highlighted in the case of Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan MANU/SC/0171/1980 : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1622. The position in that case was that helpless citizens of Ratlam town had to approach the Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for abatement of nuisance caused by the use of a public place as a public latrine with human excreta over-flowing. When the approach to the Municipality proved futile the despondent citizens moved the Magistrate under Section 133 Code of Criminal Procedure It was in that context the Supreme Court observed as follows in paragraph 15: Public nuisance, because of pollutants being discharged by big factories, to the detriment of the poorer sections is a challenge to the social justice component of the rule of law. Likewise the grievous failure of local authorities to provide the basic amenity of public conveniences drives the misesrable slum-dwellers to case in the streets, on the sly for a time, and openly thereafter, because under Nature's pressure bashfulness becomes a luxury and dignity a difficult Article A responsible municipal council constituted for the precise purpose of preserving public health and providing better finances cannot run away from its principal duty by pleading financial inability. Decency and dignity arc non-negotiable facts of human rights and are a first charge on local self-governing bodies. Similarly, providing drainage systems,-not pompous and attractive, but in working condition and sufficient to meet the needs of the people-cannot be evaded if the municipality is to justify its existance. A bare study of the statutory provisions, make this position clear. Though that case related to nuisance, the observations mutatis mutandis must apply to the facts of this case as well. The Corporation is bound, as a responsible local body, to perform its duties under Section 211 and keep the pavements in proper order and condition. As observed by the Supreme Court in Gobind Singh v. Shanti Sarup MANU/SC/0086/1978 : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 143. what is involved in such cases is not merely the right of a private individual, but the health, safety and convenience of the public at large. It is precisely that which the Petitioner seeks to enforce in these proceedings. 11. As observed by the Supreme Court in Gobind Singh v. Shanti Sarup MANU/SC/0086/1978 : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 143. what is involved in such cases is not merely the right of a private individual, but the health, safety and convenience of the public at large. It is precisely that which the Petitioner seeks to enforce in these proceedings. 11. When the duty of the Corporation under Section 211 is recognised, it needs hardly any reiteration to say that they are bound to keep the pavements and the drains in such a way that the public is not trapped into them, that they do not constitute danger to human life and society. If any drain is liable to be kept open for any purpose, as alleged in this case for letting in rain water, the Corporation is bound to provide adequate safeguards by way of fencing, or signs, to alert unwary pedestrians. The Corporation must remember that all users of the pavement are not the careful open eyed cautious type who are prone to watch their steps. The Corporation should anticipate user by the careless and the negligent ones too, besides children who may be straying along the pavement. To throw the blame on the citizen may be easy, but that is not what is expected of a responsible civic body like the Corporation. When they themselves admit that there was an opening in the pavement (of course with explanation for its existence), the Corporation cannot shirk its responsibility by saying that they had installed a caution board and that anti social elements had removed the same. 12. There are various duties enjoined on the Corporation under the Act. As to what should be the priorities in the matter of works and other duties is not a matter on which this Court can dictate or give directions to the civic body. That is a matter which will depend upon the financial constraints of, and demands on, the Corporation. However, the Corporation requires to be reminded that it is under an obligation to the citizens to keep the roads and the pavements, sewers and the drains in proper condition lest they become sources of danger to the inhabitants of the city. As to what steps should be taken in this regard is a matter for the first Respondent itself to decide. As to what steps should be taken in this regard is a matter for the first Respondent itself to decide. Needless to say such action as is called for should be taken without delay. 13. The Corporation has mainly contested the case of the Petitioner for compensation. That such an accident took place is not very much in dispute. However, the Corporation throws the4 blame on the Petitioner, charging him with negligence for having fallen into the gap at 10 O'Clock in die morning. I do not however, wish to go into these controversies, inasmuch as the question as to how the accident occurred, whether the Petitioner did suffer any damages and such like matters, are best left to be decided by a civil court. It has however, to be observed that the first Respondent Corporation has not chosen to send even a reply to the Petitioner in regard to his notice Ext. P-2. The Petitioner has done his duty by bringing the negligence of the Corporation in the matter of maintaining the streets and the pavements in good condition and as to how they pose traps for the unwary. The Petitioner's satisfaction should be in having rendered his service to society as any public spirited citizen should endeavour to do by bringing this lapse to the notice of this Court. I do not wish to say anything more in that regard. 14. The original petition is therefore dismissed with the above observations. In the circumstances I direct the first Respondent to pay the Petitioner his costs of the original petition including advocate's fee Rs. 500 Vide M.G. Mehta v. Union of India MANU/SC/0291/1986 : A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 965 Paragraph 24.