SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ( 1 ) A common question arises for consideration in five writ petitions. Respondent mcd started a scheme of Community Toilet complex under Yamuna Action Plan. The community toilets have been allotted in various parks. Residents of the locality are aggrieved by the location of these toilets. At the stage when the petition was listed for admission it was directed that the toilets could be constructed but the same would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions. It is not disputed that the toilet complexes now stand constructed. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners have contended that open spaces of parks should not be permitted to be used for toilet complexes. It is further contended that the said toilets will be used not by the residents of the locality alone but by other persons including Jhuggi dwellers. It is further contended that the association of the residents should have been heard before such a decision was taken. ( 3 ) A query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to in what manner is the master plan voilated. To this the only answer is that the park should be used only as an open space and that the MCD should have obtained permission from the DDA. The DDA has not raised any objections to the construction of the toilets and in my considered view the petitioners thus cannot make a grievance in respect of the same. It is also relevant to point out that in the development code which is part of the Delhi master Plan, Park areas can be used for toilets. Thus a specific provision has been for the same. ( 4 ) IN case of location of toilets there is always a catch 22 situation. None of the residents would like such toilets to be constructed adjacent to the areas in their occupation. However, this individual rights must give way to the larger public requirement whereby efforts have to be made to see that municipal areas are maintained properly and defecation in public is discouraged. The existence of jhuggi Jhonpri areas adjacent to constructed areas is an accepted position. Thus provision for toilet facilities is requirement of the day. ( 5 ) IT may be relevant to not that Division bench of this court in CW 531/90 K. K. Manchanda Vs. UOI etc. The existence of jhuggi Jhonpri areas adjacent to constructed areas is an accepted position. Thus provision for toilet facilities is requirement of the day. ( 5 ) IT may be relevant to not that Division bench of this court in CW 531/90 K. K. Manchanda Vs. UOI etc. in terms of the directions made on 16. 2. 2001 had in fact directed the respondent corporation to provide for such toilets for slum dwellers since defecation in public is not keeping with human dignity and infringes Article 21 of the constitution of India. It is further observed in the judgment that provision of construction of toilets cannot violate any land use of the areas as per the Master Plan. Two other judgments of this learned Single Judges of this court being Muni Lal Vs. MCD AIR 1998 Delhi 78 and CW 7506/2001 Hridey vikram Vs. MCD decided on 11. 12. 2001 emphasise the importance of providing modern community toilets under pay and use scheme. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid position I find no infirmity in the action of respondents calling for interference under Article 226 of the constitution of India. It may, however, be observed that the respondent corporation must make all endeavour to see that these public utilities constructed are maintained properly and serve the purpose for which they have been constructed. Dismissed with aforesaid observations. CM 2201/2002 Dismissed.